Comments on: A Psychological Explanation for Censorship and Claims of “Media Bias” http://techliberation.com/2006/07/24/a-psychological-explanation-for-censorship-and-claims-of-media-bias/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Fri, 25 May 2012 18:27:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Jim Lippard http://techliberation.com/2006/07/24/a-psychological-explanation-for-censorship-and-claims-of-media-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-51681 Jim Lippard Tue, 25 Jul 2006 02:34:13 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/07/24/a-psychological-explanation-for-censorship-and-claims-of-media-bias/#comment-51681 <p>The thing I find most objectionable in reporting is a misguided attempt to appear unbiased by finding a source and an "opposite" source, and reporting statements for both, regardless of the subject matter or relative credibility of the sources (or whether the issue at hand really has only two possible positions). This leads to particularly bad reporting on subjects where there are clear facts of the matter, such as science. It would be better to simply have a clear and announced bias.</p> The thing I find most objectionable in reporting is a misguided attempt to appear unbiased by finding a source and an “opposite” source, and reporting statements for both, regardless of the subject matter or relative credibility of the sources (or whether the issue at hand really has only two possible positions). This leads to particularly bad reporting on subjects where there are clear facts of the matter, such as science. It would be better to simply have a clear and announced bias.

]]> By: Jim Lippard http://techliberation.com/2006/07/24/a-psychological-explanation-for-censorship-and-claims-of-media-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-34207 Jim Lippard Tue, 25 Jul 2006 01:34:13 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/07/24/a-psychological-explanation-for-censorship-and-claims-of-media-bias/#comment-34207 <p>The thing I find most objectionable in reporting is a misguided attempt to appear unbiased by finding a source and an "opposite" source, and reporting statements for both, regardless of the subject matter or relative credibility of the sources (or whether the issue at hand really has only two possible positions). This leads to particularly bad reporting on subjects where there are clear facts of the matter, such as science. It would be better to simply have a clear and announced bias.</p> The thing I find most objectionable in reporting is a misguided attempt to appear unbiased by finding a source and an “opposite” source, and reporting statements for both, regardless of the subject matter or relative credibility of the sources (or whether the issue at hand really has only two possible positions). This leads to particularly bad reporting on subjects where there are clear facts of the matter, such as science. It would be better to simply have a clear and announced bias.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://techliberation.com/2006/07/24/a-psychological-explanation-for-censorship-and-claims-of-media-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-51680 Seth Finkelstein Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:58:41 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/07/24/a-psychological-explanation-for-censorship-and-claims-of-media-bias/#comment-51680 <p>Some quick points:<br><br>1) It's possible for both sides to be correct, in a sense. The news report can be shoddy all around. This doesn't mean it's good.<br><br>2) It's also possible that one side is correct and the other is wrong, but complains anyway (the "working the refs" theory).<br><br>3) It's possible for both be correct in the sense that they mean different things - I've seen this a lot in the case that a news report presents a leftist but in a clearly negative manner. The left will say the negative presentation is bias, the right will say that presenting the leftist is bias because the left was on the show at all, so given that legitimacy.<br><br>The PTC theory is common, and while I strongly disagree with it, you're using a straw-man. The logically consistent version is "Adults can handle this, but <em>some</em> children will be damaged". The usual phrasing is "You think children are little adults!" (which is usually an absurd accusation in a literal sense, but the idiomatic meaning is clear).</p> Some quick points:

1) It’s possible for both sides to be correct, in a sense. The news report can be shoddy all around. This doesn’t mean it’s good.

2) It’s also possible that one side is correct and the other is wrong, but complains anyway (the “working the refs” theory).

3) It’s possible for both be correct in the sense that they mean different things – I’ve seen this a lot in the case that a news report presents a leftist but in a clearly negative manner. The left will say the negative presentation is bias, the right will say that presenting the leftist is bias because the left was on the show at all, so given that legitimacy.

The PTC theory is common, and while I strongly disagree with it, you’re using a straw-man. The logically consistent version is “Adults can handle this, but some children will be damaged”. The usual phrasing is “You think children are little adults!” (which is usually an absurd accusation in a literal sense, but the idiomatic meaning is clear).

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://techliberation.com/2006/07/24/a-psychological-explanation-for-censorship-and-claims-of-media-bias/comment-page-1/#comment-34206 Seth Finkelstein Mon, 24 Jul 2006 22:58:41 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/07/24/a-psychological-explanation-for-censorship-and-claims-of-media-bias/#comment-34206 <p>Some quick points:</p> <p>1) It's possible for both sides to be correct, in a sense. The news report can be shoddy all around. This doesn't mean it's good.</p> <p>2) It's also possible that one side is correct and the other is wrong, but complains anyway (the "working the refs" theory).</p> <p>3) It's possible for both be correct in the sense that they mean different things - I've seen this a lot in the case that a news report presents a leftist but in a clearly negative manner. The left will say the negative presentation is bias, the right will say that presenting the leftist is bias because the left was on the show at all, so given that legitimacy.</p> <p>The PTC theory is common, and while I strongly disagree with it, you're using a straw-man. The logically consistent version is "Adults can handle this, but <em>some</em> children will be damaged". The usual phrasing is "You think children are little adults!" (which is usually an absurd accusation in a literal sense, but the idiomatic meaning is clear).</p> Some quick points:

1) It’s possible for both sides to be correct, in a sense. The news report can be shoddy all around. This doesn’t mean it’s good.

2) It’s also possible that one side is correct and the other is wrong, but complains anyway (the “working the refs” theory).

3) It’s possible for both be correct in the sense that they mean different things – I’ve seen this a lot in the case that a news report presents a leftist but in a clearly negative manner. The left will say the negative presentation is bias, the right will say that presenting the leftist is bias because the left was on the show at all, so given that legitimacy.

The PTC theory is common, and while I strongly disagree with it, you’re using a straw-man. The logically consistent version is “Adults can handle this, but some children will be damaged”. The usual phrasing is “You think children are little adults!” (which is usually an absurd accusation in a literal sense, but the idiomatic meaning is clear).

]]>