How news is part 2
 

#1. X is biased, as are all news sources.

#2. If John Doe uses news source X for a long time, Doe will be biased as well.

#3. If Doe uses news source X for a long time, it will become harder to convince Doe that X is biased.

#4. Replace X with whatever news source you primarily use, and replace Doe with you.

discuss

I concur. Initially I my news source was my family - primarily my parents. Then started using the available media at that time. Now there are so many varying perspectives that ts difficult to discern what the truth is. Many of them are positioned under the guise of being "watchdogs" or "nonpartisan". (See #1 above)
Its tough. I try to get a much info from different sides and then decide. Its not easy & some times those early biases creep back into the subconscious.
My personal experiences have, and continue to shape my views.

I am biased, there's no doubt, but there is absolutely no way in hell I can watch Fox News just to balance the equation. While channel surfing, my husband will pause there sometimes just to keep abreast of the nonsense. If I am in the room with him when he does that, I complain loudly to change the channel quickly. Lately I have been immensely enjoying the prime time commentary on MSNBC, but I am really only watching because the elections are coming up.

I sometimes watch Al Jazeera. My news comes mostly from the paper, and the local Fox affiliate. But local news doesn't count. It's just car crashes and murder.

I love morning Joe on MSNBC, but the Matthews,Olbermann & Maddow lineup are nothing more than the same thing for the left as Fox is for the right. Especially the latter - All they do is take pot shots at each other. My time spent on them has been severely reduced. Time spent watching Fox is virtually a zero.

... and fires glatt - don't forget the fires.

I can't believe I forgot the fires. And how could I forget the guy standing out in the rain saying "It's raining."

I think all of us are continually on the hunt for media, news and otherwise, that reinforces our existing beliefs. After all, what choir doesn't want to be preached to, affirming what they know to be true?

It's kind of comforting to know you are right.
(A friend of mine says: "Every body in the world is crazy except for me and you. And sometimes, I'm not so sure about you..."

The Cellar is my news source.

#3a. Doe will find that other sources are not trustworthy compared to X, because they do not match his priorities and his information, although Doe's priorities and information come from X.

I addressed this notion previously, in this reply to UG.

Why do you listen to WXYZ?

Because they play all the best music!!

How do you know it's the best music?

Because that's the music they play on WXYZ!!

I think you're thinking of CKLW, another Detroit station.

"You're listening to WXYZ. The songs we play may not be your favorites, but they have a lot of the same notes!"

The Celar is biased.:p:

How does your model account for aggregate sources (google news), sources chosen in challenge to the biases of J. Doe (a well-reasoned yet disagreed-with blog), and sources that are, while biased, too schizophrenic to have a coherent bias of agenda or politics (the cellar)?

I follow about 40 RSS feeds, not including a compulsive skimming of google news and a few other sites that I read directly. I know I'm biased, because I only read what interests me. But at what point do you draw the line between 'bias' and 'personality' or 'a well-formed opinion'?

I don't know that there's a perfect way, but I think that's close. I like Memeorandum, which links to major stories and then links to the blogs that are talking about the story. Being at the mercy of the aggregators is better than being at the mercy of any one source.

:yesnod:

:facepalm:

UT, have you ever read Earth, by David Brin? He discusses this -- the rise of enough diverse sources of news and opinion (and tools to sort them) that people's opinions/beliefs/politics become fragmentary and irreconcilable. Among a lot of other things.

I wonder if there's a way to address this algorithmically (is there a google news API?) -- to build an aggregator that observes your reading preferences and highlights opposing viewpoints. You could use the fact that all news sources are biased, and rely on that, rather than having to do any textual analysis. There's some risk of falling into the Crossfire trap ("a hack from the left and a hack from the right"), but..

I'm imagining something where, as your news-reading reflects a position on that 2-axis political spectrum plot, you're also given news and opinion from sources whose own position on the spectrum is at least some distance away, and ideally from a different or opposite quadrant.

The problem with aggregated sources, is they point you to bias reporters, since they are all bias.

Check each source with stories you can verify, and if they spin away from the truth, don't take them seriously. I was able to do that easily with my local newspaper, because I've caught them in outright lies. Easy to verify when you're actually involved in the story. But I've had first hand knowledge of national news in the past, and have seen the major news outlets bend the truth mercilessly.

I don't want their fucking opinion, well formed or not, give me all the facts, thank you.

Sorry, a point of clarification: I took UT's model to be describing the process by which bias spreads -- the path of J. Doe adopting and assimilating and then re-broadcasting the biases of Source X. So as J. Doe's introspective side, how can I know: I am not biased by Source X; it is a product of my personality, or my well-formed opinion, to disagree with Opinion Y?

Excellent video. Excellent POV gvidas.

"All of these stories make me who I am. But to insist on only these negative stories is to flatten my experience, and to overlook the many other stories that formed me. The single story creates stereotypes. And the problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue... but that they are incomplete. They make one story become the only story...The consequence of the single story is that it robs people of dignity. It makes our recognition of our equal humanity difficult. It emphasizes how we are different, rather than how we are similar."

I love that.

Some news services are Fair and Balanced:

I understand you were demonstrating UT's position, and I don't disagree with it. Apparently every talking head feels they must justify why they are reporting every story. But my point is, if the news sources told me what happened, instead of 1 minute of what happened and 5 minutes of how they think it must affect me, I wouldn't suffer that bias. I'll develop my own outrage, thank you.

The video makes some great points. One being, Mexican and illegal alien are not interchangeable terms, as the bias news sources have been telling everyone to rally support for bias causes.

Can you explain why you've determined that they're lies, and not errors?

I avoid outlets that I know are biased. I don't have to watch Olbermann or Beck to know what their message will be. I also don't read blogs.

The most important point is to know when they are giving you a report and when they are giving you an opinion.

Do you think most people confuse the two? I don't think they do.

You can't separate them, every damn report on the news has the reporters reasons why he thinks you should know about this story. He never says two perps robbed a 7-11, and got away in a green Prius. He spends most of the time telling me why I should be cautious of 7-11s late at night, be careful crossing the street because I might get run over by a speeding Prius, my 7-11 stock may go down, but my hoodie stock might go up. Well you know what? I don't need his opinion on any god damned thing, he's a fucking reporter, don't analyze, just report.
Even the fucking weatherman can't tell me there's a storm coming, without telling me it may affect public transportation and school schedules, I should fill my gas tank, and bring in the dog. WTF?

Not confuse them, choose to use one when they should be using the other, to intentionally mislead in favor of their bias. If you say illegal alien, they will counter with Mexican to draw attention away from the fact you are talking about criminals and try to make you look racist.

Abso-frickin-lutely.

I think more people are informed on the issue than are not, at least among the people I talk to, take the Cellar, most people know the difference.

The Cellar, while a reflection of the world, has a lot less illiterate people in it. ;)

Seriously, don't you think the bias can also go: all illegals are Mexican, and all Mexicans are illegal. There are way too many people who believe what they hear, especially when it gives them some kind of misguided birthright feeling of superiority.

They have to know the difference to do what I said.

Sure it could go that way. I guess you would have to accept the first premise that "all illegals are Mexican". There are all kinds of bias out there about most hot button issues. I just don't think the majority of people who are invested in understanding where the problems lie in this issue accept that all people who have Mexican heritage are illegal. There are dumb asses everywhere in every state, on every issue. No one has a corner on dumbassedness.

No doubt. I just don't think that is the majority.

Dumbasses tend to be the loudest.

Also, there might be a difference in generalizing illegals as Mexicans and being specific about it. I feel a lot of people, I'll admit to doing it once or twice, generalize and imply that illegal aliens are Mexicans but will obviously know its not true when questioned further. People then attack the generalization which was never suppose to be 100% accurate in the first place.....because it's a generalization. Miscommunication issue.

I think when it comes to the actual reporting on the issue people are very careful not to generalize about "Mexicans" given the number of Americans with Mexican or Central American roots. The latest news seems to be focused on the immediate cross border town violence and the implications related to it. Pundits have tried to exploit the issue to tie it into the recent laws in AZ and those other borderstates are considering. That may or may not be a fair issue.

The cellar is far more intelligent than the average.

Too many people think this is just about Mexicans, when the illegals they are catching, just catching, are from everywhere... and increasingly from the middle east and Malaysia. The next thing you know the damn Aussies will be sneaking in. :facepalm:

CRAP! Bite your tongue. A dingo ate your alien.

Just keep the Swiss out. Yeah, they're all neutral and stuff, but I hear they're very boring people....(I'm allowed to say that 'cause dad's side from Switzerland.)

It is interesting to see how the demographics have changed among those they are catching.

News reporters are going to be careful about it. I was talking more informally. But, it comes down to interpretation too. If you say illegal alien most people are going to think Hispanic. That interpretation can't be avoided in most instances.

That is true, I guess I was being pendantic considering the term "Mexican".

There's a huge contingent of illiterate people in the Cellar. They just don't read or write so you don't notice them.