Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the public controls what stories are presented by the news media and how.

While I understand that news organizations need to get good ratings and show what the viewing public wants to see, that does not mean those who present the news are incapable of being unbiased. Is there extreme pressure to be biased? Yes. Is peer pressure the end all to everything in the world? Only if you're 13 years old.

_________________

Also that the bias that is impossible to avoid is the story-selection bias. (Yeah, admittedly, different from the kind of bias you were implying, but it's still a prevalent form of it.)

Other points: Peer pressure has nothing to do with anything, and, sure, the media is capable of unbiased reporting to a certain degree. It's a question of marketing. If the audience didn't want biased reporting - or at the very least, entertaining reporting, which often amounts to the same thing - the media wouldn't be selling it, and we wouldn't be talking about it now.

Already, the worst they have in England is drive-by... arguments.

- Kef

Well, technically a newspaper editor could have some lackey write down ever story that took place for the day on little strips of paper and put them in a bucket. Then the editor would be blindfolded and grab a few stories from the bucket. Then the paper would write about those stories. No bias!



That's fine. My point is that this kind of bias is not impossible to avoid. There we go.

_________________

In today's news, Dilbert was funny today, I got a new pet goat, and a nuclear power plant did not blow up.

- Kef

....... Keeping in mind that there's a huge gulf between ideal-world possibilities and real-world possibilities.

And with that in mind, how much do you reckon unbiased reporting could really thrive in the real world?

I know this was directed at Lahi, but I want a shot at it, too.

I think there's a growing tide in America (possibly the rest of the world, too, but I only know for sure about the good ol' USA) that is tired of being told what to think. I think that, given a media source (with the assets/saturation of a Fox News or CNN) with absolutely no agenda other than to objectively report news events, the people would probably take to it.

I would, for sure.
Then again, CNN and Fox News don't really push much of an agenda, compared to something like a "State News Agency".

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Hey cool, I just wrote a paper on this topic for my course on Ethics and Technology. A summary of my argument:

- Newspapers/news shows have a finite amount of time/space in which to report. Therefore, there must be a selection process as to which stories get reported.
- The system of daily papers and news programs we have means that people are used to getting their news right now. Therefore, the selection process often has to be made in a big hurry.
- It's possible for savvy politicians to exploit that system to make sure their own bias gets in. For example, Senator McCarthy made a regular practice of making announcements about THE COMMUNIST THREAT right before the papers went to press. This left the editors scrambling to get the story in without giving them time to check the facts.
- News organizations are businesses and are out to make a profit. If their choices upset too many readers, or worse, advertisers, they will lose a lot of business. Story selection is done with this in mind.

Put it all together and there are a heck of a lot of ways for bias to get into the news. Short of totally overhauling the news system, there's not a lot anyone can do to stop it. BUT WAIT! We kind of are overhauling the system! The internet opens up whole new possibilities in the realm of reporting. Just look at the goal of Wikipedia: a website where you can read the facts as they are, free of profit pressure, deadline pressure, and motivated only by the people's desire to tell the truth. Of course, the reality falls short of that ideal, but it is certainly an admirable one.

_________________

Mind you, while the audience may resist being told what to think, that wouldn't make them any less inclined to seek out those media outlets that confirm what they already believe.

But then again, that would most probably apply to those with some kind of extreme allegiance, one way or the other. The majority of people would opt for the no agenda news that you mention.



About the political influence........ One random theory that I've had is the possible link between partisan media and the voting system in the UK and the US. The voting system both countries share - the plurality rule - has a knack of creating two-party systems. And it has done so in the UK and US. So when that two-party system arises, it doesn't take much to create a partisan media.

The theory's not water-proof or universal by any means, but you never know - there may some small link in there.

Read my disclaimer at the bottom of the post.

Meh, sure there are exceptions (India's another one), but you never know - there could be sublimities in the case of the UK and US worth examining. Mebbe.

I think the two-party system is partly an accident of history and partly a result of laziness. It's an accident of history because the parties that pull their weight just happened to be in the right place at the right time to do so. It's a result of laziness because it makes politics easier: that good old "good guy / bad guy" dichotomy (although nobody can seem to agree which is which!).

I hate political parties in general, and especially two-party systems...

- Kef

Eh, more like two major parties, and two supposedly major parties that have never controlled parliament and never will.

_________________