Me every time I have to visit an english speaking country...
Conversation
Notices
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 08:43:58 UTC 
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 09:03:16 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@pschwede C-span would be the only real large scale example of a news source that doesnt appear to have lean.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 12:08:25 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@pschwede what is relevant to you may not be relevant to another. To me that isnt an objectively useful distinction.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 12:14:21 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@pschwede Usually the way I learn about news is I see some news article from some agency someone shared. I then go to c-span or other first-sources to learn about it, often skipping the more biased "news" altogether.
C-span isnt about relevance, its about being a repository of information. As with any repository of information I select the parts I find relevant and leave the rest behind.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 12:19:37 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@pschwede I agree, I do. But sadly because journalistic integrity is so low in english speaking countries (and some others) I am forced to do my own journalism since people who claim to be journalists wont do it for me in a way that lacks bias or opinion.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 12:28:53 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@pschwede Doesnt usually work that way in my expiernce. Each viewpoint, due to their bias, provides inaccurate, misleading, and false information to do so.
You cant come to truth by comparing two falsehoods.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 12:34:32 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@pschwede I'd rather save the effort and just use reliable sources
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 13:06:52 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Not sure i agree, I've seen plenty of bias out of the guardian. Yes they are better than say MSNBC or fox, but they still lack journalistic integrity in my view and let their opinion seep into their reporting.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 13:25:43 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
1) You can tell people about some subversion that is contextual without breaking neutrality.. for example
bias: "Bob has stolen from the people again in 5 million missing dollars from the fund"
no-bias: "William, bobs secretary, made a public statement today claiming bob stole 5 million dollars from the charity, the court has yet to confirm the accusation"
2) not sure it is a good thing that you "wont read bad things about lefitsts" particularly if that translates to "you will read bad things about rightists and good things about leftists"
3) if a source isnt bias then you wont read things against whistleblowing anyway, not things with a bias lean towrds whistleblowing (which often will lead to falshoods).. you would just read the truth about a matter, nothing more nothing less.
4) same as #3, i dont want things to be pro-capitalist, nor do i want them to be pro-grass roots. I want truth, not propaganda.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 13:27:13 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
What troubles me in this response is that you admit you have a lean (in and of itself not a bad thing) and therefore seek out news sources that support your lean.
I have plenty of leans on various issues. But I tend to prefer neutral sources that challenge my tendency to have a lean with actual facts without propaganda.
If my lean is "just" and proper then it would be strengthened by the truth and not need to seek out propaganda in the first place.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 13:44:45 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Its not always about simply if the information is cited or accurate in isolation. incorrect information isnt the only way bias and lean can be harmful or lead to wrong conclusions.
Consider for example the fact that blacks in the USA are, statistically, more likely to commit violent crimes than america. If i have a racist lean I can present that fact, and it would be totally factual, but the conclusions you draw would be incorrect.
Take that same example and consider how it would be present from a neutral standpoint. In that case the counter-data would also be presented, in this case, for example, the fact that they have been a marginalized group, and suffer from oppression and poverty (Which one would use to conclude ultimately causes the violence and not their race).
Thats why lean from news sources are so insidious, cherry picking and confirmation bias are crippling characteristics of most people and by having lean, even with well sources and factual information, can lead to very dangerous and harmful conclusions all the same.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 13:46:49 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
I'm not sure i agree. Msot of our lean comes from the fact that the media repeats it every day over and over until it is hammered in. Since we tend to pick our media based on our lean we submit to this sort of brain washing of our own accord.
Being aware of the lean as you are exposed to it isnt enough, our own tendency for confirmation bias is far too strong for that to be sufficient.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 13:52:24 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@pschwede If a person is striving to find neutral sources, rather than sources with a racial lean, then they are already commited to challenging their racist lean and thus are likely to consider the counter points.
I think your reasoning about it int he wrong direction.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 14:03:37 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
No that goes back to what I said earlier.
Adding up two sources of disinformation doesnt give you information. Its similar to the idea of "two wrongs dont make a right"
Instead of taking two sources of propaganda and hoping they add up to truth it makes more sense to just stick with sources of truth and leave it at that.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 14:05:35 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
No that goes back to what I said earlier.
Adding up two sources of disinformation doesnt give you information. Its similar to the idea of "two wrongs dont make a right"
Instead of taking two sources of propaganda and hoping they add up to truth it makes more sense to just stick with sources of truth and leave it at that.
I cant read the quran and the bible and somehow learn how physics works. Two opposite and incorrect views of the universe will not result in an accurate view of the universe. For that I need a different source that is devoted to unbias truth from the get go, for that I need a physics text book.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 14:17:40 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Except the interaction in the first example is only useful if 001 and 100 contain valid represention int he first place, in truth they rarely do.
Your last phrase proves my point perfectly
"Bible and quran would be all you have, you would be trapped in religious blindness."
One bias source is the quran, the other bias source is the bible, the third unbias source is the physics book (c-span). You are right you DONT just have the metaphorical bible & quran, if you did then you'd be lost and unable to derive useful conclusions. Luckily we have some rare unbias sources you can call on. But only if you use it are you likely to understand physics.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 15:07:56 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@pschwede thats like saying "it is bias only towards things that aren't biased.
Forgive me but thats quite the play on words.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 15:12:02 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@pschwede Perfect objectivity maybe not, but we should take the closest representation of that. C-span is often a news camera sitting in congress recording things live as they happen. You cant get more objective than that unless they somehow choose to exclude sessions that would work against an agenda, which they dont appear to do.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 15:14:39 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
We are naturally biased, I agree. But that is not an excuse to succumb to that bias. In fact, all the more reason we need to make a conscious effort to avoid bias at every turn and to the greatest extent with which we are capable.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 15:20:45 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@pschwede Having incomplete information is not the same as having biased information.
That would depend largely on what angle for the camera was chosen and why. I have seen nothing to suggest that they choose their camera angles based on an inherent bias.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 15:23:21 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@pschwede I never suggested you cant read the biased news. Only that it should not be used as a source of information beyond, perhaps, a que as to what topics need researching from other less biased sources
If you remember at my lead in I even admitted that I often use the news to give me a que as to what latest world events were developing and needed my attention but then would use other sources to get that information
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 15:31:10 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@pschwede No i dont think that is neccesary to determine bias, I feel like your mixing up bias with misinformation, they are related but not the same.
While the chosen facts is also influenced by bias the bias also exists in tone, framing and language, in between the fact, and is present even when the facts may hold to be true in isolation.
Therefore most bias, at least that found in the media where it is more apparent, is almost immediately obvious by simply listening to the tone of the writing, usually even in the first sentence.
Ask yourselves when you read a news article, are the trying to paint a certain picture to support a specific conclusion, or are they simply reporting on what was said or witnessed and leaving conclusions to the reader
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 16:00:31 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@pschwede I disagree, it is contrary to journalistic integrity. IF there is a conclusion to be drawn then it would be presented by the facts, not the need to intentionally lead the reader to a specific conclusion.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 16:00:47 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@pschwede I've never evaluated them so I have no opinion on their neutrality.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 16:08:54 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@pschwede The news should mostly just be inclusive of who said what, and what evidence there is for a particular story, regardless of a conclusion.
Think of it more like science. A good journal worthy paper is like journalistic integrity. In other words, it does research in order to answer a particular question, buit provides all the data, especially the contradictory stuff, and any conclusion drawn is driven by the data.
Now the problem is with journalists there is no peer review in the same sense. So **we** as readers need to be the peer review. That means when we see bias from a new organization, we deny them credibility. If we see them selecting data to support a narrative rather than concluding a narrative from the data, then we likewise deny them credibility.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 16:11:45 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
I'm not sure I'd use the word simple-minded. I'd say you willingly expose yourself to propaganda, and as a consequence it probably effects your ability to be subjective to some extent.
How your own bias compares to the general population, well you may be better off you may be worse, I dont know you well enough.
The fact that I avoid that sort of news probably works in my favor. Though I also have other ways in which im bias. So I don't necessarily put myself above anyone else on that scale either.
But yea, I don't think watching fox news is doing you any favors, particularly if you view it as a credible source.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 17:57:05 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
@chikara The questions dont make me uncomfortable, only confused as I'm not clear on what your asking or what your concerns are beyond the answers I tried to give.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 18:15:42 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
Infowars is as far right as you get into conspiracy theory territory.
-
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Monday, 25-Nov-2019 18:28:01 UTC
🎓 Dr. Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱
No idea who he is. I just know when your talking lizard people your on the extreme end of the spectrum :)
-
All Bobinas P4G content and data are available under the