Listen, I don’t know you from Adam but there is literally an academic discipline devoted to research in this space and they specifically use the term “bias”. I don’t know how you define bias but it’s not some obscure word:
Bias
bi·as noun
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be [unfair].
And, the academics think it’s there, have an increasingly valid way of measuring and analyzing it and I tend to believe them vs. some random poster on a baseball forum who feels like it’s an “intellectual minimization”.
The myth is the myth of equivalency. But I’ll
just add that you, as a well compensated professional bureaucrat pointing out, with comprehensiveness and reason, academic studies, might not make much traction with the DWard set.
Or, to be honest, others, including myself on occasion. Cognitive bias and all that.
I would like to see a meta analysis taken from colleges and other institutions around the country using the same or similar methodology to help scrub regional or institutional bias.
I think part of the problem is that people conflate commentary with reportage. Fox News, MSNBC and the like engage in commentary; basically a 24/7 op-ed page. It’s not reporting, which is done on the main broadcast networks’ nightly news shows.
Bias in commentary is ok. Bias in reporting is not.
I remember when a news program had commentary it was a whole thing. The normal flow of the broadcast was disrupted and word “Commentary” would be put on the screen. They would often switch cameras and Chet Huntley (ohhh! another Chet!) would get extra serious before delivering an opinion. The next night they would have someone give an opposing opinion because of the “Fairness Doctrine”.
Exactly. The same way that the WSJ can run that laughable, whining screed from Alito on its Op-Ed page, but has to do legitimate reportage for the rest of its content.
This made me chuckle. I’ll have you know that this is the first time anyone has ever called me a bureaucrat to my face. It’s not untrue but still a bit jarring to see.
Eh, I went through the first article and then looked at their criteria. Basically, their measure is where various politicians/parties fall on an issue. So, Republicans/Trump say the election was stolen; Democrats say the opposite. Apparently if a news organization reports equally on those propositions, they are unbiased.
Your definition of bias is about being fair to a person or group. I view it about being fair to the truth, and would view equal reporting on both side of the “election was stolen” claim as biased, relative to the truth.
So, this dumbass on a baseball forum remains unpersuaded by your assertion, or your presented evidence.
Which is wrong–if one person says it’s raining and another says it isn’t, it’s not the journalist’s job to present both sides, but to look out the window and check.
This is often the crux of the anti-science crowd…”we just want equal time”, no matter how ridiculous their position. I guess in that sense, yes there is a bias in academia towards a “globe earth”, but doesn’t mean the flat earthers are being treated unfairly and that their argument has the same validity.