A issue of Bias
Bias = an inclination of temperament or outlook
This is the definition of bias that I accept when reviewing the media and the interpersonal activity. I find it amazing when people claim not to be bias. I find it truly unbelievable when a media source claims to be unbias and worse I find it to be a active act of deception.
Why? Because I believe everyone and every media source has a bias.
People look at things through the eyes of their own experiences. This is true for civilian, reporter, editor, and executive. When someone sees or hears of something you think is news worthy there is always a bias connected to why you think it is news worthy. Be the bias as simple as the event taking place with in the community in which the media source is based, it remains a bias. The bias being in that case the idea that local events are important for the local media source to reference, that importance no matter how widely agreed upon is still a bias. In that case the bias is toward local events. But the issue goes further still because not every local event is covered by local news sources. So another bias can be in play which is that of "it would be of interest to the readers/viewers". How does one determine what will be of interest to the readers/viewers? Again bias comes in to play. The bias in this case may well be that "people are interested in stories about crime" or "people are interested in stories about sports".
So with that in mind several levels of bias occur in every media story or report. The first level is that of the reporter who decides that something they have become aware of will be of interest to reader/viewer. That bias often includes the reporters own life experiences and interests. The second level of bias is that of the editor that determines if they feel it is worth being included in their media source again decided upon by their own life experiences, interests, and business sense. The reporters bias is reflected in the language and focus of the story. While the editors bias is reflected in the stories placement or not and the amount of space or time given it within the framework of the media itself. The last level of bias comes from the owners and their executives which direct the editors and by extension the reporters to types of stories they feel will bring in the readership and by extension the advertisement.
Now most people like to assume bias to be bad, but bias is used every day by everyone and it effects every judgment one makes during ones life. Bias directs what foods you buy and direct who you spend time with. Bias is formed in large part from experience and from learning what one likes or doesn't like. A completely non-bias media source would have to include every event that takes place anywhere around the world at any time in history, present, or future and include every thought. Clearly that is impossible.
Even should one be able to pick a story to present the way it is presented and the language and focus of it is often shaped by the bias of the reporter, editor, and viewer. Pictures are not immune from this bias. Questions like "why that picture" "why that person" "why that angle" come to the fore.
So having establish that bias exists in all media news sources what is to be done? One first have to overcome the idea that bias is bad. Second one has to be aware of ones bias. Third one has to be honest with the reader/viewer of these bias. What is often missed in the effort to seem "objective" is the simple fact that bias is also a heighten sense of awareness. It is the bias sources that are monitoring the issues of which they are bias. As a result they are often the first to detect a important events within that issue. Then then act as a resource for other less interested parties to discover stories that would otherwise go unnoticed. Let me provide a example:
If I love Panda's and I create a site on the web for lovers of Panda's with a focused concern with the care and treatment of Panda's I will be more likely then others to hear of mistreatment of Panda's and document and notice trends of treatment of Pandas that would other wise go unnoticed by the general population. So should some practice deemed by our group to be harmful of Pandas take place we will be in a position to provide sources and documentation to outside media that generally doesn't focus on Pandas. In this case this can be a good thing for the Pandas, while at the same time being completely bias. Now if that is a good or bad thing in general is yet again a bias.
So in conclusion I would like to say in general it is important to be self aware of ones bias and embrace these bias as acceptable and normal. Media sources that claim to be unbias and claim to be objective are in fact lying to their viewers and are doing so for less then honorable reasons. It is wrong for a media source to hide their bias and wrong for them to sell their bias as being objective thought. It is wrong because it causes a illusion of a bias being the norm and of other bias as being "unobjective" or abnormal. Such activity breeds contempt for bias that the media source doesn't support and by extension creates a false sense of superiority of certain bias. Also it has to be known that bias doesn't mean false. Bias sources often have factual data within there reporting. The idea that due to a source being bias means their data is invalid is nothing more then a effort to silence or devalue certain bias.
We need to have a more honest and open society in which bias can be reviewed by all and the subjective will of the majority will be allowed to push to the fringes those bias that are not accepted by the majority. BUT those fringe bias should be allowed to remain if for no other reason then being a questioning element to the beliefs of the majority. A idea/bias untested and unchallenged is a idea/bias unproven. While the conflict between bias can become heated and at time unpleasant it is wholly important in a country in which the people are the final rulers.
Thank you for listening.
This is the definition of bias that I accept when reviewing the media and the interpersonal activity. I find it amazing when people claim not to be bias. I find it truly unbelievable when a media source claims to be unbias and worse I find it to be a active act of deception.
Why? Because I believe everyone and every media source has a bias.
People look at things through the eyes of their own experiences. This is true for civilian, reporter, editor, and executive. When someone sees or hears of something you think is news worthy there is always a bias connected to why you think it is news worthy. Be the bias as simple as the event taking place with in the community in which the media source is based, it remains a bias. The bias being in that case the idea that local events are important for the local media source to reference, that importance no matter how widely agreed upon is still a bias. In that case the bias is toward local events. But the issue goes further still because not every local event is covered by local news sources. So another bias can be in play which is that of "it would be of interest to the readers/viewers". How does one determine what will be of interest to the readers/viewers? Again bias comes in to play. The bias in this case may well be that "people are interested in stories about crime" or "people are interested in stories about sports".
So with that in mind several levels of bias occur in every media story or report. The first level is that of the reporter who decides that something they have become aware of will be of interest to reader/viewer. That bias often includes the reporters own life experiences and interests. The second level of bias is that of the editor that determines if they feel it is worth being included in their media source again decided upon by their own life experiences, interests, and business sense. The reporters bias is reflected in the language and focus of the story. While the editors bias is reflected in the stories placement or not and the amount of space or time given it within the framework of the media itself. The last level of bias comes from the owners and their executives which direct the editors and by extension the reporters to types of stories they feel will bring in the readership and by extension the advertisement.
Now most people like to assume bias to be bad, but bias is used every day by everyone and it effects every judgment one makes during ones life. Bias directs what foods you buy and direct who you spend time with. Bias is formed in large part from experience and from learning what one likes or doesn't like. A completely non-bias media source would have to include every event that takes place anywhere around the world at any time in history, present, or future and include every thought. Clearly that is impossible.
Even should one be able to pick a story to present the way it is presented and the language and focus of it is often shaped by the bias of the reporter, editor, and viewer. Pictures are not immune from this bias. Questions like "why that picture" "why that person" "why that angle" come to the fore.
So having establish that bias exists in all media news sources what is to be done? One first have to overcome the idea that bias is bad. Second one has to be aware of ones bias. Third one has to be honest with the reader/viewer of these bias. What is often missed in the effort to seem "objective" is the simple fact that bias is also a heighten sense of awareness. It is the bias sources that are monitoring the issues of which they are bias. As a result they are often the first to detect a important events within that issue. Then then act as a resource for other less interested parties to discover stories that would otherwise go unnoticed. Let me provide a example:
If I love Panda's and I create a site on the web for lovers of Panda's with a focused concern with the care and treatment of Panda's I will be more likely then others to hear of mistreatment of Panda's and document and notice trends of treatment of Pandas that would other wise go unnoticed by the general population. So should some practice deemed by our group to be harmful of Pandas take place we will be in a position to provide sources and documentation to outside media that generally doesn't focus on Pandas. In this case this can be a good thing for the Pandas, while at the same time being completely bias. Now if that is a good or bad thing in general is yet again a bias.
So in conclusion I would like to say in general it is important to be self aware of ones bias and embrace these bias as acceptable and normal. Media sources that claim to be unbias and claim to be objective are in fact lying to their viewers and are doing so for less then honorable reasons. It is wrong for a media source to hide their bias and wrong for them to sell their bias as being objective thought. It is wrong because it causes a illusion of a bias being the norm and of other bias as being "unobjective" or abnormal. Such activity breeds contempt for bias that the media source doesn't support and by extension creates a false sense of superiority of certain bias. Also it has to be known that bias doesn't mean false. Bias sources often have factual data within there reporting. The idea that due to a source being bias means their data is invalid is nothing more then a effort to silence or devalue certain bias.
We need to have a more honest and open society in which bias can be reviewed by all and the subjective will of the majority will be allowed to push to the fringes those bias that are not accepted by the majority. BUT those fringe bias should be allowed to remain if for no other reason then being a questioning element to the beliefs of the majority. A idea/bias untested and unchallenged is a idea/bias unproven. While the conflict between bias can become heated and at time unpleasant it is wholly important in a country in which the people are the final rulers.
Thank you for listening.