Is it possible to have truly unbiased TV news?

[Beet]

I think it is. I know that no news channel will ever please everyone. But it is possible to have a channel that either offers no commentary, or offers substantively balanced commentary, and which also goes after stories for their relevance and importance without conscious bias and only minimal substantive bias. An organization governed by a strict code of journalistic ethics-- no more than that, revises and updates journalistic ethics for the 21st century and takes it to a whole new level. Employees who did not follow it would be strictly disciplined. In fact, if I were a billionaire, I think that would be one of the projects I'd look at.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Of course not. You cannot have truly unbiased anything. Even statistics have biases. There is no purity in human argument - your teachers lied to you.

[Beet]

My teachers never claimed "purity" in human argument. The first step of this project would be to define bias. It is not necessarily true that lack of bias means lack of perspective. Perhaps what is needed is a perspective that is clearly spelled out and defined. Clearly, "an alien invasion of New York City, killing thousands" would be reported as a negative event. But at the same time it does not have to fall into all definitions of bias.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

My teachers never claimed "purity" in human argument. The first step of this project would be to define bias. It is not necessarily true that lack of bias means lack of perspective. Perhaps what is needed is a perspective that is clearly spelled out and defined. Clearly, "an alien invasion of New York City, killing thousands" would be reported as a negative event. But at the same time it does not have to fall into all definitions of bias.

It's a bias as there is bias in the nature of the news - as in, what to report.

So yeah what Al said.

[Beet]

My teachers never claimed "purity" in human argument. The first step of this project would be to define bias. It is not necessarily true that lack of bias means lack of perspective. Perhaps what is needed is a perspective that is clearly spelled out and defined. Clearly, "an alien invasion of New York City, killing thousands" would be reported as a negative event. But at the same time it does not have to fall into all definitions of bias.

It's a bias as there is bias in the nature of the news - as in, what to report.

So yeah what Al said.

So a kid squashing an insect in his bedroom is no less newsworthy than the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks? I think most people would agree that the latter is more 'newsworthy', and that is the key.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

My teachers never claimed "purity" in human argument. The first step of this project would be to define bias. It is not necessarily true that lack of bias means lack of perspective. Perhaps what is needed is a perspective that is clearly spelled out and defined. Clearly, "an alien invasion of New York City, killing thousands" would be reported as a negative event. But at the same time it does not have to fall into all definitions of bias.

It's a bias as there is bias in the nature of the news - as in, what to report.

So yeah what Al said.

So a kid squashing an insect in his bedroom is no less newsworthy than the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks? I think most people would agree that the latter is more 'newsworthy', and that is the key.

... Yeah, but how is that not biased.

I imagine to the kid squatting the bug that it may be more important to him than Sept 11.

[Earth]

No, not at all.

[Beet]

My teachers never claimed "purity" in human argument. The first step of this project would be to define bias. It is not necessarily true that lack of bias means lack of perspective. Perhaps what is needed is a perspective that is clearly spelled out and defined. Clearly, "an alien invasion of New York City, killing thousands" would be reported as a negative event. But at the same time it does not have to fall into all definitions of bias.

It's a bias as there is bias in the nature of the news - as in, what to report.

So yeah what Al said.

So a kid squashing an insect in his bedroom is no less newsworthy than the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks? I think most people would agree that the latter is more 'newsworthy', and that is the key.

... Yeah, but how is that not biased.

I imagine to the kid squatting the bug that it may be more important to him than Sept 11.

Well by that standard, we ought to repeal all laws against murder, since to the murderer, whatever he gets out of it may be more important to him than the loss of life of the victim!

[Tetro Kornbluth]

My teachers never claimed "purity" in human argument. The first step of this project would be to define bias. It is not necessarily true that lack of bias means lack of perspective. Perhaps what is needed is a perspective that is clearly spelled out and defined. Clearly, "an alien invasion of New York City, killing thousands" would be reported as a negative event. But at the same time it does not have to fall into all definitions of bias.

It's a bias as there is bias in the nature of the news - as in, what to report.

So yeah what Al said.

So a kid squashing an insect in his bedroom is no less newsworthy than the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks? I think most people would agree that the latter is more 'newsworthy', and that is the key.

... Yeah, but how is that not biased.

I imagine to the kid squatting the bug that it may be more important to him than Sept 11.

Well by that standard, we ought to repeal all laws against murder, since to the murderer, whatever he gets out of it may be more important to him than the loss of life of the victim!

Wow, that is one of the strangest strawmen I have ever heard. It doesn't even have to do with bias.

[Beet]

My teachers never claimed "purity" in human argument. The first step of this project would be to define bias. It is not necessarily true that lack of bias means lack of perspective. Perhaps what is needed is a perspective that is clearly spelled out and defined. Clearly, "an alien invasion of New York City, killing thousands" would be reported as a negative event. But at the same time it does not have to fall into all definitions of bias.

It's a bias as there is bias in the nature of the news - as in, what to report.

So yeah what Al said.

So a kid squashing an insect in his bedroom is no less newsworthy than the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks? I think most people would agree that the latter is more 'newsworthy', and that is the key.

... Yeah, but how is that not biased.

I imagine to the kid squatting the bug that it may be more important to him than Sept 11.

Well by that standard, we ought to repeal all laws against murder, since to the murderer, whatever he gets out of it may be more important to him than the loss of life of the victim!

Wow, that is one of the strangest strawmen I have ever heard. It doesn't even have to do with bias.

Yes it does. The problem with bias is that it is considered unjust. The problem with murder is that it is considered unjust. You use the fact that from the perspective of the little boy, which is wildly distorted from the perspective of 'society', his squishing the insect is more important than 9/11, to argue that neither can be placed above the other-- but by the same token, one can argue that the perspective of the murderer which is wildly distorted from the perspective of 'society' is just as valid. You can argue that the courts that convict him are biased: Not that they did not give him a fair trial, but they failed to consider that from his perspective, the action was worth it.

The point I am getting at here is that there is an objective standard, and this objective standard is generally what the broad spectrum of society can agree on. Just as most people can agree that murder is wrong, so most can agree that 9/11 is a more important story than a child squashing a bug. And this perspective-- that of a broad, agreeing majority, can be called unbiased.

[Хahar 🤔]

The problem with bias is that it is considered unjust.

Nobody said anything like that. Bias is not inherently bad.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The problem with bias is that it is considered unjust.

Nobody said anything like that. Bias is not inherently bad.

Yeah exactly.

Actually I find the idea that "society" should have an "objective standard" disturbingly authoritian.

[Beet]

The problem with bias is that it is considered unjust.

Nobody said anything like that. Bias is not inherently bad.

Bias is not bad? Then how come about 100% of the time that it is used against any journalist, article, or media outlet it is used as an attack? Come, on.

Ghyl Tarvoke:

But if society has no "objective standard" than any standard-- even a highly authoritarian standard-- is equally valid as any other. With no standards, whomever has the most power gets to define the common standard, and people who are outside of power have no effective voice to speak out. The truth is, most people-- in the West at least, have an instinctive aversion to authoritarianism. The best defense against authoritarianism is an "objective standard" that includes as part of that standard some measure of anti-authoritarianism.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No, not at all.

[Хahar 🤔]

The problem with bias is that it is considered unjust.

Nobody said anything like that. Bias is not inherently bad.

Bias is not bad? Then how come about 100% of the time that it is used against any journalist, article, or media outlet it is used as an attack? Come, on.

The word "liberal" is also used as an attack. That does not make liberalism bad. It is fair to criticize American media for bias, given that it overwhelmingly claims to be unbiased. But where lack of bias is not claimed, bias is not necessarily bad.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The problem with bias is that it is considered unjust.

Nobody said anything like that. Bias is not inherently bad.

Bias is not bad? Then how come about 100% of the time that it is used against any journalist, article, or media outlet it is used as an attack? Come, on.

Simple. Because of the perception the news is biased against you.

Anyway you are using an extreme example. Why for example is a murder of OMG YOUNG TEENAGE GIRL!111 considered newsworthy if is not a bias towards sensationalism?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Correct. Standards are arbitrary.

Which is a different thing from saying there should no standard (or rather, guidelines).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LULZ. "Common standard" usually means the standard of the status quo. As the example of the OMG MURDERED TEENAGED GIRL!!!111 shows.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you want to be Authoritian against Authoritanism? Okayyyy...

You still haven't shown how unbiased TV news is possible.... Let's say on 9/11 another non-related terrorist attack in subsahara Africa occured killing oh say, 25,000 people. Which is more important? 25,000 happens to be iirc the amount of children who die each day in the world due to disease, malnutrition, infant mortality, etc... should this be headline news every day? And does that the fact that it is not, show that TV is fundamentally biased (as if it could be anything else)?

[Beet]

The problem with bias is that it is considered unjust.

Nobody said anything like that. Bias is not inherently bad.

Bias is not bad? Then how come about 100% of the time that it is used against any journalist, article, or media outlet it is used as an attack? Come, on.

The word "liberal" is also used as an attack. That does not make liberalism bad. It is fair to criticize American media for bias, given that it overwhelmingly claims to be unbiased. But where lack of bias is not claimed, bias is not necessarily bad.

The difference is that the biased people who do not claim to be unbiased-- do you ever see them labelling themselves as biased? No, never. Even though they would not deny it or take it as an insult if you used the term on them, they would still never use it on themselves.

Liberal, on the other hand, is occasionally used in neutral or positive terms, and liberals will sometimes call themselves that.

A person accusing Al Franken of bias, for example, might accuse him of bias within the context of his own stated values. But it would be out of place for a Franken supporter to say something like "I congratulate him for his bias."

Functionally, bias always carries negative connotations. It depends on the context.

The same qualification exists for the assertion that bias is not always bad. It is always bad-- in the aggregate. If you are trying to make a decision about what to do, you want an unbiased evaluation of the situation; not a person whispering into your ear over-optimistically or over-pessimistically; even if you know that person is over-optimistic or over-pessimistic. You're still better off with the most accurate evaluation possible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And most people go throughout their lives with this perception, and in fact assume this perception. Even intelligent people. If you were walking past a university classroom and saw a lecturer... would you immediately assume bias? No, you would listen to what they were saying, and if it sounded good, you would be influenced. Even if you were highly aware of bias, if exposed to the same bias day in and day out, even a very aware person would be broken down.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you will not commit to the idea that there should be no standard?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah ha, I was waiting for that. The children who die around the world every day due to these things are not newsworthy because people are aware of it already. And if another terrorist incident occurred in subsaharan Africa occured killing 25,000... then its importance depends on your reference population. Which is precisely my point. The West and subsaharan Africa do not exist in the same society. Therefore for their given society, their own people are more important, and same-so for ours. But within the reference of our own society, there is broad agreement on the relative importance of 9/11.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Authoritarianism, as I take it, means some people dominating and denying freedoms to others. To be authoritarian, there must be a dominator. Similarity in itself is not authoritarian. Similarity in values is not authoritarian. The situation you propose, in which there are no objective standards of perspective, is most vulnerable to authoritarianism, because it allows whoever has most power to impose his own perspective on others without effective objection.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oooh... fun.

My teachers never claimed "purity" in human argument.

Obviously not. Yet at some point along the way here you seem to have picked it up. Because if you think it is possible for there to be no bias, then you think that purity in human argument is possible - whether you realise that or not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, that's all bias of one sort of another. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I would like to read the news written through, and commented on by, a broadly social democratic and intellectual bias. Alas, there is no such newspaper, so I have to make do with a wet liberal rag called the Guardian instead. You would obviously like to watch news on the telly that reflects a bias towards a certain sort of civic liberalism. And there's nothing wrong with that. But it would still be a bias.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well by that standard, we ought to repeal all laws against murder, since to the murderer, whatever he gets out of it may be more important to him than the loss of life of the victim!

You're confusing the idea of objective truth (actually, no. No, you're not. Pure truth would be a better way of putting it. Even if you call it objective you don't exactly mean that) with the idea of objective morality (or as someone I knew years ago put it well; that some things are wrong because they are wrong) when the two are certainly not the same thing. I am, for example, very sceptical of pure truth, pure knowledge and so on (we all have baggage, basically. We all look at things through tinted glasses), but most certainly believe that there is, to an extent, such a thing as an objective morality (which isn't to deny the existence of other moralities, many of a very subjective nature).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lol.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That isn't possible, comrade. When you start with anything you have to have a point to begin with - and that's where your perceptions, prejudices and biases come in.

You are claiming that can be a truly objective form of news. I claim, on account that there is no such thing as "unbiased", that such a thing is absurd and authoritian, as it makes grounds for "truth" based on criteria you consider "objective". That is, arbitrary to you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So what you are saying is that unbiased objective TV news should be biased in favour of certain locations? Which locations? I could argue that the deaths of those African children are being abetted by American (and others) trade and economic policies - is that not news? Or is that opinion even if I could argue it was fact be too biased for news? What's the difference between opinion and fact exactly?

Or another point, Imagine I live in Hell, Arizona... what connection do I have with 9/11 other than the fact that I live in the particular geographical-abstract space known as "the United States of America". Objectively speaking, without this subjective abstraction known as "the nation state" (or "national sentiment" whatever that is) my connection is those that died in 9/11 is the same as those who died in Subsaharan Africa. Is "national sentiment" unbiased? Where does the local and the global begin and end?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So in other words, arbitrary. "Society" is an abstraction, who is society. All of us? Do all of us decide what is on TV news?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well considering we talking about TV news where intellectual discussion is a no-no; it would be very difficult to put across why one truth is better than the other. Who is to choose?

[Beet]

Oooh... fun.

My teachers never claimed "purity" in human argument.

Obviously not. Yet at some point along the way here you seem to have picked it up. Because if you think it is possible for there to be no bias, then you think that purity in human argument is possible - whether you realise that or not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, that's all bias of one sort of another. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I would like to read the news written through, and commented on by, a broadly social democratic and intellectual bias. Alas, there is no such newspaper, so I have to make do with a wet liberal rag called the Guardian instead. You would obviously like to watch news on the telly that reflects a bias towards a certain sort of civic liberalism. And there's nothing wrong with that. But it would still be a bias.

Does everything have to be political? I would not like to see news that 'reflects a bias towards a certain sort of civil liberalism.' I would like to see news that reflects the most honest expression of the values of a society (unintruded by a secret vested interest in one side or another), which despite all political disagreements, are overwhelmingly similar.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The point I am getting at here is that there is an objective standard, and this objective standard is generally what the broad spectrum of society can agree on. Just as most people can agree that murder is wrong, so most can agree that 9/11 is a more important story than a child squashing a bug. And this perspective-- that of a broad, agreeing majority, can be called unbiased.

Are you aware of quite what you're arguing in favour of here?

[Хahar 🤔]

The problem with bias is that it is considered unjust.

Nobody said anything like that. Bias is not inherently bad.

Bias is not bad? Then how come about 100% of the time that it is used against any journalist, article, or media outlet it is used as an attack? Come, on.

The word "liberal" is also used as an attack. That does not make liberalism bad. It is fair to criticize American media for bias, given that it overwhelmingly claims to be unbiased. But where lack of bias is not claimed, bias is not necessarily bad.

The difference is that the biased people who do not claim to be unbiased-- do you ever see them labelling themselves as biased? No, never. Even though they would not deny it or take it as an insult if you used the term on them, they would still never use it on themselves.

Liberal, on the other hand, is occasionally used in neutral or positive terms, and liberals will sometimes call themselves that.

A person accusing Al Franken of bias, for example, might accuse him of bias within the context of his own stated values. But it would be out of place for a Franken supporter to say something like "I congratulate him for his bias."

Functionally, bias always carries negative connotations. It depends on the context.

Whether bias is used positively or not does not change the fact that their is nothing about the word that makes it inherently negative. Certainly, people may not recognize bias that is not against them as such, but in every statement there is bias of some sort. Bias is the means by which we discriminate between things.

The same qualification exists for the assertion that bias is not always bad. It is always bad-- in the aggregate. If you are trying to make a decision about what to do, you want an unbiased evaluation of the situation; not a person whispering into your ear over-optimistically or over-pessimistically; even if you know that person is over-optimistic or over-pessimistic. You're still better off with the most accurate evaluation possible.

Yes, but the most accurate evaluation possible requires complete knowledge, which I think it is safe to say none of us have.

[Beet]

Al: I suspect you're misinterpreting me there.

Gully:

"Who is to choose?" The most powerful is to choose. To admit that bias is not only right, but also inevitable, you are to admit that there is nothing to go by in the world except power. And if you admit that, then the primary beneficiary would be the authoritarianism you dislike. And not only is it an admission that there is nothing to go by in the world except power, but it is an admission that there is no commonality between people that would allow them to see eye to eye, and that is just false.

The society and the nation is of course arbitrary. As is a friendship between two people. As is your cognitive relationship, in the abstract, with children in sub-saharan Africa. I picked society and nation arbitrarily, but that is not essential to my argument. I could have picked any of the above.

The point is, any time two people have any commonality, there is bias and unbias. The bias and unbias exists in respect to that commonality. If two people agree that murder is wrong and nothing else, then it is bias if one of those two people commits a murder and yet will not admit he did wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No it does not require complete knowledge ,that is why it is the most accurate evaluation "possible."

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Does everything have to be political?

I don't know whether everything has to be political, but I do know that, to an extent, everything (at least everything in public and cultural life*) is. Certainly everything regarding the news is political and must be political.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But the values that you value of the parts of your society that you value are strongly influenced by civic liberalism. While your vision of a tv news programme that reports the facts in an "unbiased" way is about as good an example of civic liberalism in this field as is possible to find.

*And much that isn't, but heading that way would be going off topic.