• underisk@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So what criteria do you use to decide which stories to believe and which to discard due to source bias? How can you have any valid criteria when all the information you have on any given subject is tainted with unavoidable bias?

    • BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’ll start by addressing your second question first: bias isn’t a binary; it exists on a spectrum. there’s a difference between a tiny bit of bias and extreme bias. So, though previous research and experience, I have come to trust some sources more than others and come to expect certain sources to have more or less bias in one direction or another. that, combined with comparative analysis of multiple sources, one can come closer to factual reporting through one’s own critical analysis of the reporting itself-- however, depending on what’s reported and the sources available, sometimes… one can only be so certain that one is getting the truth.

      it can be frustrating trying to find accurate reporting of a story, even from previously trusted sources. I encourage people to read their news from multiple sources whose backgrounds they’ve investigated and to critically analyze the facts presented, and that they apply their own critical analysis to try their best to arrive as close as they can to the facts. Also, to realize that, in the world of corporate media, that being certain that the news you’re consuming is 100% accurate my not be possible.

      • underisk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        A tiny bit of bias relative to what; where is the zero-point on your bias spectrum? Objective truth? Even objective facts can be presented in a biased manner. You’re suggesting I can arrive closer to objective truth by comparing and analyzing data from various sources but also saying I should ignore this source because its biased. Would that not also bias my analysis?

        • BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          as I said before, I don’t think there is a “zero point” of bias in news reporting. even the organization I cited, mediabiasfactcheck, only rates bias on a scale of “least biased” to “extremely biased”.

          to be clear, I never said that WSJ should be ignored. I just quoted from the analysis of an independent organization which is dedicated to analyzing the bias in media/news sources-- which, I’ll point out, reports WSJ as having a high level of factual reporting. With regards to this specific article: it’s an opinion piece-- pieces which, by their nature, are almost always very biased. This one is also highly speculative, loaded with equivocation and hypotheticals which is clearly pushing an agenda more than attempting to inform. You’re free to disagree, but discussing the subject therein doesn’t interest me in the context of this article.

          And regardless of the subject or the source, just because of the fact that you are human, of course your analysis would be biased towards your own interests and beliefs. So would anyone’s. If everyone was impartial and free of bias, there would never be any conflict, war, or argument. Everyone would agree on everything.

          • underisk@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You say there’s no zero point but at least theoretically there must be if one source can be “less biased” than another. Even if in reality it can only asymptotically approach zero there still must be a zero to approach.

            I agree that it’s important to recognize one cannot be unbiased which is why it’s useful to examine one’s biases and challenge them through analysis of media that may not confirm those biases. You’re telling me that you’re not trying to dismiss this source due to bias but also that you don’t want to engage in a good faith analysis of the claims within. Rather than trying to debunk the claims you’re simply taking a shortcut to arrive at a conclusion that confirms your own biases.

            • BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You say there’s no zero point but at least theoretically there must be if one source can be “less biased” than another. Even if in reality it can only asymptotically approach zero there still must be a zero to approach.

              you’re welcome to that opinion. I’ve explained my position.

              I agree that it’s important to recognize one cannot be unbiased which is why it’s useful to examine one’s biases and challenge them through analysis of media that may not confirm those biases. You’re telling me that you’re not trying to dismiss this source due to bias but also that you don’t want to engage in a good faith analysis of the claims within.

              that’s not what I said.

              Rather than trying to debunk the claims you’re simply taking a shortcut to arrive at a conclusion that confirms your own biases.

              incorrect. I urge you to re-read what I’ve said rather than see what you wish to. I find it curious that you accuse me of applying my biases when you have, in fact, twisted my words so badly to only hear what you wish and conclude something quite different that what I’ve expressed.

              and, perhaps more sophisticated than most, in retrospect, this was a clear attempt at

              Sealioning

              Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”, and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings. The term originated with a 2014 strip of the webcomic Wondermark by David Malki, which The Independent called “the most apt description of Twitter you’ll ever see”.

              have a good night.

              • underisk@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                My friend, if two values can be quantitatively compared then it’s not an opinion that there is exists a theoretical minimum of that value.

                How convenient that you can find a wikipedia article to link that lets you dismiss any and all attempts at discussion without having to engage earnestly with a another person. Sorry for taking an interest in understanding and discussing your worldview. Good night.

                • BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  we’re not friends. and if you don’t like the consequences of your bad behavior, then you should stop behaving in such reprehensible manner.

                  “DARVO is an acronym used to describe a common strategy of abusers. The abuser will: Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender.”