Is it possible to have truly unbiased TV news?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Al: I suspect you're misinterpreting me there.

No what that quote says effectively is that the news should represent the will of the community (whoever one defines it) and be unbiased. In effect arguing that what most people agreed upon is what is unbiased.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Did I say that? Gosh.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Huh? I've yet to understand this anti-objective truth = authoritianism argument. Please explain. What I am arguing is that every human perspective and truth is biased by definition (even if it is 'objective' in a scientific sense - but that's a different matter) and that things as they already are are arbitrary and based on personal and various other kinds of biases. Unless you are claiming we already live in a society which is "the Authoritianism I dislike" then your argument makes no sense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now I didn't say that (lay off Foucault for a while, would you?). I'm not saying that the commonality between people is wrong just that it is arbitrary and subjective.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes exactly. So it is subjective, I'm not commenting on morality of such things, just their reality.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So If two people think murder is okay and then go out and kill someone, it is in fact okay. It is after all a commonality.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So If two people think murder is okay and then go out and kill someone, it is in fact okay. It is after all a commonality.

For a historical case you really only need to look at how the Holocaust unfolded in Lithuania.

Aaaaaaaaand with that Nazi reference, I believe that I win/lose the thread. yay.

[Beet]

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.

But I didn't say the 'values that value' and 'the parts of society that value', I said society. Period. Whether my quest to find an unbiased news is an example of civil liberalism, it may be. But the content of what is unbiased, as I have defined it, would not pick and choose among values that are commonly held.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It goes like this... you're a little man in a huge crowd. A bigger man comes up to you and tries to rob you. "Help!" you cry. "I'm being robbed!" Does the crowd come to help you? Well it depends on whether they understand your words, "Help, I'm being robbed!", not only in a literal sense, but in some moral sense that motivates them to act. The only way they would do that is if they shared with you some moral language. In other words, an objective standard between you and the crowd, which you both understand the same way, and which this big man is violating.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is true to an extent, but what you're missing is the linkages and understandings between people.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I am saying, no, they are not; not in relation to each other.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it's not okay, but they would be honest with each other. They would be living up to their stated beliefs between the two of them. There would be no bias between them.

[Beet]

So If two people think murder is okay and then go out and kill someone, it is in fact okay. It is after all a commonality.

For a historical case you really only need to look at how the Holocaust unfolded in Lithuania.

Aaaaaaaaand with that Nazi reference, I believe that I win/lose the thread. yay.

The Nazis propaganda machine (starting in the 1930-33 elections) is a prime example of the damage that can be done by bias within a society.

[Хahar 🤔]

So If two people think murder is okay and then go out and kill someone, it is in fact okay. It is after all a commonality.

For a historical case you really only need to look at how the Holocaust unfolded in Lithuania.

Aaaaaaaaand with that Nazi reference, I believe that I win/lose the thread. yay.

The Nazis propaganda machine (starting in the 1930-33 elections) is a prime example of the damage that can be done by bias within a society.

Isn't campaign literature inherently biased?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

So If two people think murder is okay and then go out and kill someone, it is in fact okay. It is after all a commonality.

For a historical case you really only need to look at how the Holocaust unfolded in Lithuania.

Aaaaaaaaand with that Nazi reference, I believe that I win/lose the thread. yay.

I think its lose. Though at least you managed to avoid mentioning the Nazi inner circle.

Yeah wasn't that where local lynch mobs usually managed to kill/chase out the Jews just before the Nazis were about to arrive?

Okay then, back on topic... (unless Beet wishes to argue that anti-semitism is an unbiased commonality. Which given that in this is in reference to the holocaust I doubt he would want...)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not arguing against morality, only the proposition that morality is something which exists outside of our time-and-space existence (and is thus objective). Just because my argument is subjectivist does not mean it can not be communal. Human relations have to be communal; we aren't born into nothingness - we get our ideas from somewhere. Just because an idea is arbitrary doesn't mean it is bad.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think my above point answers that. You are looking at it too much from an Individualist-Communalist binary perspective. Where the "individual" is "biased" but the community is not by definition.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How so?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have stated that a communality is not biased. A group of people commit a human sacrifice once every full moon; this is not wrong to them. Therefore their action is not biased?

[Beet]

So If two people think murder is okay and then go out and kill someone, it is in fact okay. It is after all a commonality.

For a historical case you really only need to look at how the Holocaust unfolded in Lithuania.

Aaaaaaaaand with that Nazi reference, I believe that I win/lose the thread. yay.

The Nazis propaganda machine (starting in the 1930-33 elections) is a prime example of the damage that can be done by bias within a society.

Isn't campaign literature inherently biased?

Yes, but it's not usually so effective. See my worry this spring about the huge crowds and adulatory coverage Obama was getting. Not that he was going to be a Nazi, but it was unhealthy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But I didn't say the 'values that value' and 'the parts of society that value', I said society. Period. Whether my quest to find an unbiased news is an example of civil liberalism, it may be. But the content of what is unbiased, as I have defined it, would not pick and choose among values that are commonly held.

I understand that claims that the President of the United States is not an America citizen have become quite popular with sections of American society.

That inevitable barb aside and taking what you write at face value, you seem to be advocating a form of cacophony. Or, at best, polyphony. Not "unbias" (whatever that is).

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Don't watch TV news. You are only prolonging their waning control over the flow of information. Use the internet to get a wide variety of perspectives free of corporate/state influence.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So If two people think murder is okay and then go out and kill someone, it is in fact okay. It is after all a commonality.

For a historical case you really only need to look at how the Holocaust unfolded in Lithuania.

Aaaaaaaaand with that Nazi reference, I believe that I win/lose the thread. yay.

The Nazis propaganda machine (starting in the 1930-33 elections) is a prime example of the damage that can be done by bias within a society.

What sort of impact did the Nazi propaganda machine have on Lithuania? Or Latvia? Or the Ukraine? In all of these places violent antisemitism was acceptable and, in the early 1940's, seems to have become the norm. And thus, by your definition, objective and unbiased. Yes, I know that this is a monstrously unfair argument.

Btw, you ought to bear in mind that most modern research into Nazi propaganda tends to downplay its effectiveness (with the bizarre exception of Hitler's personality cult). It seems that when people heard blatant propaganda on the radio they usually turned it off because it was boring.

[Beet]

I'm not arguing against morality, only the proposition that morality is something which exists outside of our time-and-space existence (and is thus objective). Just because my argument is subjectivist does not mean it can not be communal. Human relations have to be communal; we aren't born into nothingness - we get our ideas from somewhere. Just because an idea is arbitrary doesn't mean it is bad.

Then this has degenerated like so many other debates into semantics. When I say "objective" I mean in the colloquial sense. You're talking more in a philosophical sense. When people say "objective" with regard to the TV news media what they usually mean is communal. I am not arguing there is some metaphysical correct perspective, obviously.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's impossible to say whether the individual is biased or unbiased. You have to have a frame of reference.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just think about the difference between telling the truth and lying. Bias is very much like lying. You're not directly contradicting the truth, but you're contradicting it in spirit, the spirit of communication where certain things are supposedly understood between the communicator and communicated to. At best, the receiver is highly aware of your bias, but as I said this is not likely when it comes to communications with masses of strangers.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It strikes me as deeply wrong, but to call it biased? Again, to bias is unjust, because it is a dishonest distortion of values as they are understood. I don't particularly see that here. But just because I may not define it as biased it doesn't mean I wouldn't object to it.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Ah I see where we are getting off wrong.

I don't see bias as wrong or even lying - it is subconcious, what one is not even aware of, what appeals to one, this is not bad, nor is it necessarily good - it is just the way humans are. We are not even aware of 99% of our opinions and our own stated opinions often contradict themselves - there is often a huge gap between what we say we believe (even to ourselves) and what we actually believe. This is again, the way humans are. This is not a bad thing.

There is no objective or centralized values. So to claim that bias is "a dishonest distortion of values as they are understood" is absurd. Who is understanding them?

[Beet]

But I didn't say the 'values that value' and 'the parts of society that value', I said society. Period. Whether my quest to find an unbiased news is an example of civil liberalism, it may be. But the content of what is unbiased, as I have defined it, would not pick and choose among values that are commonly held.

I understand that claims that the President of the United States is not an America citizen have become quite popular with sections of American society.

That inevitable barb aside and taking what you write at face value, you seem to be advocating a form of cacophony. Or, at best, polyphony. Not "unbias" (whatever that is).

Quite a barb yes, but maybe not in the sense you meant. It's barb in the sense that you're not taking my argument at face value, you're assuming I'm *really* arguing for some kind of Beet propaganda network where the voices of the birther movement would never see the light of day. 'Civic liberalism', perhaps. Though after tonight I have to say I feel sorry for anyone you meet who you decide is a 'civic liberal'. But quite on the contrary... I am serious about this unbiased TV. In fact, I'll toss you a piece of meat to rip apart and say that now that I think of it, wikipedia comes pretty close to a medium I would consider unbiased.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes quite unfair, because I haven't said that bias is the root of all evil. ... yet.... j/k.

[Beet]

Ah I see where we are getting off wrong.

I don't see bias as wrong or even lying - it is subconcious, what one is not even aware of, what appeals to one, this is not bad, nor is it necessarily good - it is just the way humans are. We are not even aware of 99% of our opinions and our own stated opinions often contradict themselves - there is often a huge gap between what we say we believe (even to ourselves) and what we actually believe. This is again, the way humans are. This is not a bad thing.

There is no objective or centralized values. So to claim that bias is "a dishonest distortion of values as they are understood" is absurd. Who is understanding them?

To say that people are fallible and that we often contradict ourselves doesn't mean that there is no understanding. Society operates by deep mutual understanding and expectations. If Al is correct and bias is really so ineffective then perhaps there is less to worry about. Still, look a the degeneration of news today. We are returning to the 19th century in many ways. What effect will the dominance of partisan media in TV and the Internet have on the future of American society?

[anvi]

Asking news to  be unbiased tout court is asking too much.  From the stories news chooses and don't choose to cover to how much coverage the chosen stories receive already reflects some judgment, made from a particular point of view, about what is and isn't important to us, and what is relatively more or less important.

It seems to me what is being sought here is fact-based reporting with no political perssuasion.  A legislative proposal is made in Washington, the proposal would enact policies x, y and z and not a, b and c.  The advocates of the proposal have reasons 1, 2 and 3 for supporting it, the opponents have reasons 8, 9 and 10 for their disapproval.  Maybe some fact-checking about the claims of both sides, maybe a little historical context.  End of story, move to next story.  No editorials, no commentary, no Kieth Olberman, no Lou Dobbs, no Bill O'Reily.  The viewers decide what to think.  They may be subject to persuasion by family, friends, campaigns, ect. ect., but not by the news as we're considering it.

This would not be a style of reporting free from biases, for to be free of biases is a so-called "hermeneutic impossibility," meaning that we are limited, historically conditioned news-reporters and consumers and therefore will always be approaching rhe material with our own baggage.  But that doesn't mean we can't stick as closely to the facts as we are able.  I think that is possible, and I suspect such kind of news delievery would be welcome in the U.S.   I know I would welcome it.  I'm sick of all these bloviating, bullsh**ting morons, on both the left and the right.

[The Mikado]

Of course there's such a thing as unbiased TV News.  If you're willing to watch 8 hours of C-SPAN and C-SPAN 2 a day, you will have enough information to piece together your own read on the Healthcare issue.

You'd also be the dullest person alive.

[anvi]

Aren't there enough outlets in American culture where people beat the crap out of each other, from sports to reality tv to sit-coms to game shows to the marketplace to, you know, war?  Can't we at least have one medium in our culture that will allow us to be better-informed citizens?  Does every damn thing in American culture have to be about people constantly slamming their dicks on the table? 

[Хahar 🤔]

Of course there's such a thing as unbiased TV News.  If you're willing to watch 8 hours of C-SPAN and C-SPAN 2 a day, you will have enough information to piece together your own read on the Healthcare issue.

You'd also be the dullest person alive.

But that has a bias itself, in favor of Congress.

[Scam of God]

Here's how to have an unbiased media: become the media. The old, quaint television stations are obsolete; they live on the borrowed time of their partisans. The Internet, as in all things, has democratized our ability to dialogue with one another. The newspaper industry's misfortunes are just the beginning; the next several decades will see the death of organized, corporate broadcasting as we know it. And we need to make that future a reality.

Because hierarchical, centralized programming benefits nobody. NBC is beholden to General Electric; FOX News is at the beck and call of Roger Ailes. Both wings need agree on this issue: the future of media broadcasting - fairer media broadcasting - lies in user-generated content, and all the necessities that make it possible (Network Neutrality being only the most obvious needful element).