redgreen5 said:
[quote author=HeDied4U]
I guess I'm curious about something (and perhaps you've already addressed this elsewhere but since I'll admit I don't read all of your posts I may have missed it)....
Exactly what do you consider to be a "reputable source?"
Here's an example, using FOX News as the case study in bias:
FOX is a poor source of news. I have heard that fact from people on all parts of the political spectrum, although (to your point) it does come more frequently from people on the left. That's natural, since FOX spends most of its free time attacking people on the left; kick somebody, and they're likely to kick you right back. But I've also heard FOX's reputation and bias being pointed out by non-leftists. It just depends on their level of maturity and intellectual integrity.
I belong to several online forums where economics and politics are discussed by more serious invidividuals. Nobody quotes FOX, just like nobody quotes the National Enquirer and just like nobody quotes the Industrial Workers of the World. While the participant may *agree* with the comments in sources like these, the goal is to craft the persuasive argument that is backed by reputable sources. So if the item was found on FOX News, then the first thing that happens is they try to find independent confirmation of the story from a reputable source. If they can, then they'll source the story from the reputable source instead.
It's sort of like financial credit rating. Would you give someone with a 750 credit score a loan for $1000? Probably you would, since that's a great score. But would you give someone with a 300 score the same loan for $1000? You *might*, but only after more extensive paperwork and probably getting a co-signer. That's the situation that FOX News is in. It's the same situation that Murdoch's other papers (News of the World, recently shut down, The Sun, etc.) find themselves in.
So having said all that , some points:
1. If you believe that there is no such thing as total freedom from bias, then fine. But that does not absolve you of the need to find the
least biased news. Throwing up your hands and saying, "nobody is free from bias, so I'll just read whatever makes my beliefs sound good" is not a solution. It's not an all-or-nothing scenario; "if we can't have total freedom from bias, then remove the bolt on the door and let all sources in because they're all equally biased." There is still a spectrum of bias from *less* to *more*. It takes some effort to navigate that spectrum.
2. Reading lots of sources is always the wisest course. Not just as a safeguard against bias, but the simple fact is that there is too MUCH news out there for any one source to cover. So if you want to know what happened in the country (or the world) today, you kinda have to read 3 or 4 news sources, because they all emphasize different things. That's why I read Al-Jazeera, the Vancouver Sun, The Economist, Ha-Aretz, etc. I used to read the SCMP (South China Morning Post) but it's been awhile since I looked at it....But when you do this, you get a much more rounded view of the world and the events that impacted people during the last 24 hours.
3. If you cannot substantiate your claim from a mainline source (preferably more than one), then you have a problem. If the only place that your claim shows up is in op-ed columns, fringe websites, chain-email letters, online BBS forums (i.e., freerepublic.com), then you have a problem. If you think you're going to get other people to accept your badly sourced, obviously slanted sources as objective fact, you have more than a problem: you have a delusion.
[/quote]
Thank you for your reply.
