Reality as a well known corporate bias.

There is only one set of facts, but there can be many truths.

That said, what the fark is up with this newspaper?

There is a difference between saying that you have a viewpoint and claiming that there is no such thing as objective reality.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

OgreMagi: I see a lot of people who probably claim there is no liberal bias in newspapers are defending this action.

It's not the newspapers, man. It's just that reality has a well-known liberal bias.

5000 cases of right-wing media BS: redlight.
1 case of left-wing media BS: greenlight.

Man it's hard trying to keep up the "librul media conspiracy" line when you're forced to actually look at news stories.

So, Drew. What's your editorial bias?

GRAR GRAR CORPORATIONS ARE EEBUL STALIN WAS MISTREATED BY THE RIGHT-WING NOISED MACHINE GRAR GRAVITY IS A BOURGEOUIS CONSPIRACY

Mr_Fabulous: nexxus: Many people outright deny that there is an objective reality.

What makes you think there is one?

the oracle told him he would find it

Space Banana Physicist: So the well-known bias of reality towards liberalism just wasn't enough for these people, eh?

Snark aside, this is not particularly surprising. I have worked at - and been fired from - more newspapers than most people have had hot meals and I can say this with assurance: Managing editors are arrogant, uptight, back-stabbing weenies. These people suck. They will throw you under the corporate bus for any reason whatsoever, including their own personal problems (which are universally multitudinous). I guarantee that the truth of this firing has nothing to do with the strange fig-leaf ("we're not objective but we're fair") offered.

Wow. I've worked at two major city papers, a Web site and a TV station in 15 years in the field. In three out of those four experiences it's seemed to me that EiCs and publishers were the ogres, while the newsroom management tried to manage egos while getting a decent product out. The one time where the problem was in the newsroom, I got fired. Full disclosure: I've been lowest-rung management myself for a little over a year now, but this is an opinion I've had for a long time.

So I've got to wonder: How much of your inability to hold onto a job has been your bosses' attitudes, and how much was due to that gigantic chip you've got on your shoulder?

NightOwl2255: tow

Toe, goddamn it.

TOE.

LawrencePerson: There is a difference between saying that you have a viewpoint and claiming that there is no such thing as objective reality.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

I'm a tremendous fan of the man. Have nearly all his works. But PK Dick was a drug-addled nutjob. And no human being has access to The Truth.

There are lots of little truths running around every which way. And nothing more, for all you know.

yukichigai: OgreMagi: I see a lot of people who probably claim there is no liberal bias in newspapers are defending this action.

It's not the newspapers, man. It's just that reality has a well-known liberal bias.

People who believe this tend to be insane or stupid. Which one are you?

NightOwl2255: The NRA publishes, or did, a magazine. I'm guessing they expect writers to tow the pro gun line. This "paper's" objectivity is not in question, they don't have any.

The NRA magazine was a gun magazine. It would not make sense to hire someone to write anti-gun articles. A magazine for butchers wouldn't hire a vegan to write anti-meat articles. You are trying to compare apples to driveshafts.

Mr_Fabulous: nexxus: Many people outright deny that there is an objective reality.

What makes you think there is one?

Anyone who denies an objective reality should be murdered on the principle that their murder only seemed to happen and therefore should not be prosecuted.

Or, at the very least, kicked in the balls. I volunteer to do the kicking, and will provide candies to anyone who doesn't flinch because they choose not to perceive my kick.

The New FARK Layout: To be fair, I don't entirely disagree with their statement in the entirety. There obviously is an objective reality to the events that happen in the world, but is there really such a thing as entirely objective news coverage? For every story, there are facts that just don't fit in the piece, or that the reporter doesn't find out, or that he didn't see with his own eyes. Even if we're talking about an unedited video of some event, the cameraman has still decided where to point the camera, and what to focus on.

Yes, they sound pretty crazy - but though there are relative degrees of objectivity in news reporting, it's probably true that there's really no such thing as 100% objective reporting of reality.

It sounds like you're confusing content with bias. If I'm a cameraman pointing my camera at an event and recording the event for transmission later on...it's a visual chronicle of the event. It is, by definition, a factual recording of the event. Leaving parts out CAN be an attempt to inject personal bias into a story but leaving stuff out is, in itself, simply reducing information flow...not necessarily doing so to deliver a bias along with the story. Facts don't have a bias therefore a straight delivery of facts isn't a biased report.

The terms "progressive news" and "objective" are pretty much automatically contrary. Progressive infers a political/social position which cannot be truly objective. It'd be like saying "dry water". The two don't go together. Same goes for "conservative news". Horseshiat.

For instance, here's an article on Yahoo via Reuters (new window) about Evan Bayh's announced retirement. Twenty one paragraphs (albeit small ones) and of the article's 743 words, only 104 were actually uttered by Bayh. The remaining 639 were the efforts of 4 reporters and one editor. Would it not have simply been easier to just print the transcript of his announcement? Sure, but if you do that you miss the entire opportunity to go on about how this affects the Democrats, Republicans and Obama. The story was Bayh retiring...the rest is reporters "helpfully" putting this announcement in "context" for you.

...and that's where bias normally comes in.

Mr_Fabulous: Maybe, just maybe, everyone in the world believes that their own perception of reality, their own understanding of observed facts, and their own interpretation of how those facts "fit" into their own worldview... is the "objective" and "correct" one. And it's everyone ELSE who is blind to their own bias.

This is essentially the message of Goldberg's "BIAS" - which is that a dyed in the wool libtard thinks he's being objective, when in actuality he's espousing incredibly libtard viewpoints. Also, journalism is filled with libtards who have little interest in objective reporting, but a LOT of interest in "changing the world."

Mr_Fabulous: LawrencePerson: There is a difference between saying that you have a viewpoint and claiming that there is no such thing as objective reality.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick

I'm a tremendous fan of the man. Have nearly all his works. But PK Dick was a drug-addled nutjob. And no human being has access to The Truth.

You've conceded that there is an "objective reality", by the very fact that you respond to a posting, showing that you accept that another entity exists and is discussing this issue with you, is rational enough to discuss the issue, and by the fact that you accept that a "Philip K. Dick" existed, who used drugs and wrote books.

There are lots of little truths running around every which way. And nothing more, for all you know.

No one mentioned anything about a "Truth", but about "objective" truths, for which one only has to demonstrate that a single such truth exists to pop the bubble of Universal Skepticism.

I'm a practicalist. Sure, we can't really prove we aren't brains in a jar, but it isn't practical to go around doubting the reality of everything. Meaningfulness begins by taking things for granted.

Even empiricism starts with a few basic, unprovable assumptions about the nature of existence, but that isn't relevant: what matters is that it's useful to us.

There probably is an objective reality. Even if there isn't, so what? You'll still be sitting in your armchair, amateur philosopher.

Wake up and smell the Socrates. Objective reality as a philisophical concept hasn't been taken seriously for over 2000 years. What people call objectivity is simply the lack of coordinated, systematic and purposeful lying - which is nice, but hardly objective.

Mr_Fabulous: nexxus: Many people outright deny that there is an objective reality.

What makes you think there is one?

Human beings are mortal: they are born, they live, and they die.
At some point, there must have been a first recognizably-human being, or possibly a group of such. How long ago this occurred, or how exactly they came to exist, is debatable, but given the normal human lifespan, it is a safe assumption that these first humans are all dead. Despite this, reality continues to exist: ergo, reality is not dependent on the observation of the first human (or first group).

Humans also exist who were not among the first of their kind (indeed, everyone alive today falls under this categoy). The existence of this first person or group, however, implies that reality existed -even if for no other purpose than to contain the first humans- before the birth of these non-first humans. Therefore, reality is not dependent on the observation of non-first humans.

We have now covered the set of humans who were among the first of their kind and the set of humans who were not among the first. These two sets between them comprise all of humanity: therefore, reality cannot be dependent on human observation.

QED.

We have always been at war with East Asia.

craig328:
It sounds like you're confusing content with bias. If I'm a cameraman pointing my camera at an event and recording the event for transmission later on...it's a visual chronicle of the event. It is, by definition, a factual recording of the event. Leaving parts out CAN be an attempt to inject personal bias into a story but leaving stuff out is, in itself, simply reducing information flow...not necessarily doing so to deliver a bias along with the story. Facts don't have a bias therefore a straight delivery of facts isn't a biased report.

The terms "progressive news" and "objective" are pretty much automatically contrary. Progressive infers a political/social position which cannot be truly objective. It'd be like saying "dry water". The two don't go together. Same goes for "conservative news". Horseshiat.

For instance, here's an article on Yahoo via Reuters (new window) about Evan Bayh's announced retirement. Twenty one paragraphs (albeit small ones) and of the article's 743 words, only 104 were actually uttered by Bayh. The remaining 639 were the efforts of 4 reporters and one editor. Would it not have simply been easier to just print the transcript of his announcement? Sure, but if you do that you miss the entire opportunity to go on about how this affects the Democrats, Republicans and Obama. The story was Bayh retiring...the rest is reporters "helpfully" putting this announcement in "context" for you.

...and that's where bias normally comes in.

My original post wasn't particularly well-worded. What i meant was this: no matter what the intention of the reporter (whether there was intentional bias, or just inability to capture the entirety of a situation in a report), the omission of any fact in a report prevents it from being truly objective. Like I said, there are degrees, and careful and honest reporters can get very close to being entirely objective - but the nature of reporting and of any one person's vantage point on the world makes it such that no report, even a video record, will ever be comprehensive of every minute detail that went into that moment in time, or event.

The point is that true objectivity seems to me to be impossible, because no one knows the entire set of facts that may be relevant to a particular situation. Whether a fact is omitted intentionally via purposeful bias, intentionally for lack of space (or perceived unimportance), or entirely unintentionally, it was omitted, so the record itself does not contain the entirety of the news. Which is unavoidable.

So, re: the Bayh example, even a transcript isn't really a complete record, is it? What were his (or his speechwriter's) motivations? Which words had which meanings, not as the reader understands them, but according to Bayh? The point is that "reducing information flow" in any way precludes the possibility of a report being objective (that is, a true, complete, and unbiased presentation of the event).

So, I think it's a breath of fresh air for a news org to acknowledge this, even if they are crazies. If a group isn't under some delusion about their ability to present truly objective news, then maybe they'll be better-equipped to spot the kind of omissions they're making that really matter (which, of course, makes one wonder who defines which omissions "really matter" - another reason why any omission prevents true objectivity).

Joe Friday does not approve.

impaler: OgreMagi: yukichigai: OgreMagi: I see a lot of people who probably claim there is no liberal bias in newspapers are defending this action.

It's not the newspapers, man. It's just that reality has a well-known liberal bias.

People who believe this tend to be insane or stupid. Which one are you?

Explain this: Link (new window)

Why would I want to try to explain that crap?

Back when I went to Journalism school (in the early '90s) we were taught that everyone has a biased viewpoint; the trick was to be aware of your own biases and not allow them to interfere with the reporting of objective reality.

We were also taught that the generation of reporters before us were just taught to report objectively without the added caveat that they need to be aware of their own biases and avoid allowing them to interfere.

Even though my personal biases are definitely liberal I spent nearly a decade working quite happily as the political reporter for a decidedly conservative paper in a very conservative state. Most of my stories were about conservative politicians and the mostly consisted of pointing out to the general public that their so called "public servants" weren't serving the public, but rather screwing them.

My stories always included the basics: 1. Who 2. What 3. Where 4. Where 5. Why & 6. How. I was willing to talk to underlings and get the back story, (so I almost always had multiple sources,) and I did not mind having a state Senator slam his door in my face. I took it as a badge of pride in fact. I saved interpretation for the opinion page. (Being a good friend of the editor, I rarely had any trouble getting my letters published.)

Somewhere along the line though, Fox managed to destroy many of this nation's reporter's pride in doing their job right. Further, the internet has destroyed most of the revenues of papers, so investigative journalism goes underfunded. Sure the internet gives us a greater number of gatekeeper-free sources of information, but it is not an unmixed blessing.

/All that said. Journalistic standards people! Stand up for them. As I said earlier, my leanings are liberal, but any paper that deliberately displays a bias rather than striving for objectivity is nothing but a tabloid rag.
//On the other hand, since most media is decidedly conservative (Republican whining to the contrary) and no longer even pretends to be objective, I suppose we need liberal leaning outlets for balance of a sort. Talk about your no-win situations. Sigh...

rvesco: Turns over in her grave -- once again...

I think I speak for most rational people when I say, "fark Ayn Rand."

You know who else didn't believe in an objective reality?

I have a feeling that this publication would be a great source of fark headlines.

Approves

craig328: Facts don't have a bias therefore a straight delivery of facts isn't a biased report.

Sure, it can be, if one selectively picks which facts to report and which to omit. For example, a report consisting solely of facts which agree with one position while all facts in disagreement with that position are ignored is a biased report, even if it's completely factual. Of course the facts aren't biased, but their reporting can be.

LawrencePerson: There is a difference between saying that you have a viewpoint and claiming that there is no such thing as objective reality.

If you look at the statement, he doesn't state there is no objective reality. He says there is no objective reality *that can be objectively reported*. The statement allows for the existence of objective reality, as long as that reality cannot be objectively reported upon.

just2quixotic: //On the other hand, since most media is decidedly conservative (Republican whining to the contrary) and no longer even pretends to be objective, I suppose we need liberal leaning outlets for balance of a sort. Talk about your no-win situations. Sigh...

Oddly, WSWS.org does a pretty good job, if you ignore what looks like occasional paste-on exhortations from Socialist Morbo at the beginning and ends of articles. It's not as bad about that as it was five years back.

You don't have to be a reporter long before you wonder what reality is. Eyewitnesses reports conflict so much that it makes you question your own judgment.

You see, this is totally farking fuxored. "The news is biased ..." boo farking hoo. Yeah - it is. That's called perspective.

On the other hand, explicitly outlawing a vaguely defined objectivity not only outlaws balance, but also perspective.

Moreover: if objectivity does not exist, how can you ban it?

It's like banning unicorns:

Came for the Rand reference. Leaving satisfied.

Sum Dum Gai: craig328: Facts don't have a bias therefore a straight delivery of facts isn't a biased report.

Sure, it can be, if one selectively picks which facts to report and which to omit. For example, a report consisting solely of facts which agree with one position while all facts in disagreement with that position are ignored is a biased report, even if it's completely factual. Of course the facts aren't biased, but their reporting can be.


While you're busy quoting, feel free to quote the part that already addressed your post:

Leaving parts out CAN be an attempt to inject personal bias into a story but leaving stuff out is, in itself, simply reducing information flow

I'm curious, how did you manage to quote just one part of my post while completely ignoring the part that pre-answered your retort? Were you that hot to jot something down in this thread that you willfully skipped the part that already rebutted what you were about to blurt? Or do you lack reading comprehension? Or perhaps you suffer from some form of truncated attention span?

I'm not really all that worked up about it. Just curious as to the motivation for your comment.

craig328: I'm curious, how did you manage to quote just one part of my post while completely ignoring the part that pre-answered your retort? Were you that hot to jot something down in this thread that you willfully skipped the part that already rebutted what you were about to blurt? Or do you lack reading comprehension? Or perhaps you suffer from some form of truncated attention span?

I'm not really all that worked up about it. Just curious as to the motivation for your comment.

Because what you call "reducing information flow" is itself bias. Even if it's not done with a deliberate intent, bias is injected into all reporting by virtue of the fact that it's painting an incomplete picture, and someone is choosing which facts/stories are reported and which aren't.

The Face Of Oblivion: GRAR GRAR CORPORATIONS ARE EEBUL STALIN WAS MISTREATED BY THE RIGHT-WING NOISED MACHINE GRAR GRAVITY IS A BOURGEOUIS CONSPIRACY

Linux_Yes frowns at your shenanigans.

/As for TFA, I'm shocked that progressives are dipshiats.

The Face Of Oblivion: GRAR GRAR CORPORATIONS ARE EEBUL STALIN WAS MISTREATED BY THE RIGHT-WING NOISED MACHINE GRAR GRAVITY IS A BOURGEOUIS CONSPIRACY

0/10

death to america.

On the one hand I weep for the demise of unbiased journalism. On the other hand, at least they admit to their agenda unlike CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc.

I just want to say, I read everything I can that was written by Andisheh Nouaree. Most of his articles are hilarious and very informative.

Dances-With-Lobster 2010-02-16 05:53:59 PM

5000 cases of right-wing media BS: redlight.
1 case of left-wing media BS: greenlight.

Man it's hard trying to keep up the "librul media conspiracy" line when you're forced to actually look at news stories.

So, Drew. What's your editorial bias?


Not necessary, as you already have your own built-in bias.
But you're right, how come there's never any criticism of Limbaugh, Beck or Fox News here?