Pardon me for jumping into the middle here, but I have to respond to this.

Gould 0738 wrote:
News should be objective.

That's impossible. News is *always* biased, and the whole notion of
objectivity in journalism is the biggest single factor in the political
dumbing-down of Americans that has occurred over the last few decades.
It's a recent invention, too, created in the 20th century by well-meaning
people who didn't understand that it couldn't ever work. It would be a
good idea if it could work, but it can't.

Why not? Because news is collected and reported by people, and people have
biases. No matter how hard you try for complete objectivity, it can never
be achieved, because everything you see, hear and read is filtered through
your own worldview.

"But if they just report plain facts, with no interpretation, that's
objective by definition!" you may respond. But that's not true either, at
least not in a world as large and complex as the one we inhabit, for the
simple reason that it's not possible to report *all* of the facts. The
journalist must filter the raw facts and decide what is worth reporting and
what isn't. This filtering introduces obvious bias. Even less obvious but
perhaps more pernicious is the problem of fact-checking. While journalists
should check all of the facts they report, there are many, many levels of
checking, ranging from simple verification of the source to full-on
investigation. In an ideal world, every fact reported would be fully
investigated and verified through multiple channels, but that's simply not
possible, so journalists have to make judgements about what level of
checking is required. Naturally, "facts" that appear to violently
contradict the reporter's own worldview will get checked more thoroughly
than those that seem patently obvious, meaning that errors that the
reporter agrees with are more likely to be published than errors the
reporter does not agree with.

Finally, even if individual reporters and editors were able to be purely
objective and avoid biasing their reports in any way, a few individuals
with an agenda can intentionally introduce their own biases.

What makes all of this really nasty is when the consumers of this biased
news are convinced that they are getting straight, objective news, so they
don't bother to look for and take into account the biases.

Personally, I think we as consumers of the news were much better off 100
years ago when the newspapers wore their biases on their sleeves, so to
speak. Then, at least, people knew what they were getting, and they could
use multiple, opposing sources to get a more accurate view of the world.

Shawn.

Gould 0738 wrote:
News should be objective.

That's impossible. News is *always* biased, and the whole notion of
objectivity in journalism is the biggest single factor in the political
dumbing-down of Americans that has occurred over the last few decades.

Congrats on a very insightful post.

Many of our major news sources make *no* attempt to be objective. As you
observe, that's not a problem until some of these highly biased sources declare
that they are bastions of objectivity and that all *other* sources, with a
different agenda, are hopelessly biased.

The most hilarious thing I hear, several times a week, are multi-million dollar
radio personalities with the largest listening audiences in the country moaning
and wailing about being victimized by the "mainstream media."

Gould 0738 wrote:

Many of our major news sources make *no* attempt to be objective.

Probably. It's hard to get inside their heads to know for sure. I suspect
they do try to be objective, but not very hard, and not all the time.

The most hilarious thing I hear, several times a week, are multi-million
dollar radio personalities with the largest listening audiences in the
country moaning and wailing about being victimized by the "mainstream
media."

One nice thing about those radio shows is at least they're up front with
their biases, mostly. Their audiences mostly haven't caught onto the idea
that it's a good idea to listen to conflicting points of view and think
critically about the content, but I think that's mostly the fault of the
supposedly objective media, which has trained the last three generations to
simply accept whatever is broadcast as truth. I welcome the rise of these
blatantly biased sources in the hope that people will eventually catch onto
the idea that all news should be taken with a grain of salt.

BTW, with regard to my auto carb, I've gotten several other confirmations of
your (and Fred's) point of view from a Bayliner owner's forum. Not one
dissenting opinion, in fact. Darn it.

Shawn.

BTW, with regard to my auto carb, I've gotten several other confirmations of
your (and Fred's) point of view from a Bayliner owner's forum. Not one
dissenting opinion, in fact. Darn it.

Shawn.



Darwinism. Sometimes those who practice
dissent don't remain with us long enough to form an opinion.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:36:22 -0600, Shawn Willden
wrote:

Pardon me for jumping into the middle here, but I have to respond to this.

Gould 0738 wrote:
News should be objective.

That's impossible. News is *always* biased, and the whole notion of
objectivity in journalism is the biggest single factor in the political
dumbing-down of Americans that has occurred over the last few decades.
It's a recent invention, too, created in the 20th century by well-meaning
people who didn't understand that it couldn't ever work. It would be a
good idea if it could work, but it can't.

All it takes are indiscriminate adjectives inserted into the account
to establish a point of view, and at that point objectivity is gone.


Why not? Because news is collected and reported by people, and people have
biases. No matter how hard you try for complete objectivity, it can never
be achieved, because everything you see, hear and read is filtered through
your own worldview.

Exactly!


"But if they just report plain facts, with no interpretation, that's
objective by definition!" you may respond. But that's not true either, at
least not in a world as large and complex as the one we inhabit, for the
simple reason that it's not possible to report *all* of the facts. The
journalist must filter the raw facts and decide what is worth reporting and
what isn't. This filtering introduces obvious bias. Even less obvious but
perhaps more pernicious is the problem of fact-checking. While journalists
should check all of the facts they report, there are many, many levels of
checking, ranging from simple verification of the source to full-on
investigation. In an ideal world, every fact reported would be fully
investigated and verified through multiple channels, but that's simply not
possible, so journalists have to make judgements about what level of
checking is required. Naturally, "facts" that appear to violently
contradict the reporter's own worldview will get checked more thoroughly
than those that seem patently obvious, meaning that errors that the
reporter agrees with are more likely to be published than errors the
reporter does not agree with.

Then there are guy like Jayson Blair. But that's another story.....


Finally, even if individual reporters and editors were able to be purely
objective and avoid biasing their reports in any way, a few individuals
with an agenda can intentionally introduce their own biases.

What makes all of this really nasty is when the consumers of this biased
news are convinced that they are getting straight, objective news, so they
don't bother to look for and take into account the biases.

There are people who actually believe the articles in the National
Enquirer. Some people's B.S. filters don't work very well. This
usually has a lot to do with their education.


Personally, I think we as consumers of the news were much better off 100
years ago when the newspapers wore their biases on their sleeves, so to
speak. Then, at least, people knew what they were getting, and they could
use multiple, opposing sources to get a more accurate view of the world.

I find it interesting that the group of people who's idealogue have
been infiltrating the mass media and educational institutions in order
to rewrite history and promote their agendas for years now, suddenly
have a problem when the other side tries to counter it in their own
arena.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:


I find it interesting that the group of people who's idealogue have
been infiltrating the mass media and educational institutions in order
to rewrite history and promote their agendas for years now, suddenly
have a problem when the other side tries to counter it in their own
arena.

Dave


Hmmmmmmm. A dozen or so posts ago, you claimed you could produce your
autobiography because you wrote well.

As a former teacher of English, I'd give you a D- or perhaps an F for
this gem of a paragraph.

Let's see...a quick scan...

....a group of people who's... interesting.
....who's idealogue... interesting.
....who's idealogue has been infiltrating... interesting.
....a group...their agendas... interesting.
....a group...suddenly have... interesting.
....other side...in their own... interesting.

You're some writer, Dave.

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:35:32 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:


I find it interesting that the group of people who's idealogue have
been infiltrating the mass media and educational institutions in order
to rewrite history and promote their agendas for years now, suddenly
have a problem when the other side tries to counter it in their own
arena.

Dave


Hmmmmmmm. A dozen or so posts ago, you claimed you could produce your
autobiography because you wrote well.

As a former teacher of English, I'd give you a D- or perhaps an F for
this gem of a paragraph.

Let's see...a quick scan...

...a group of people who's... interesting.
...who's idealogue... interesting.
...who's idealogue has been infiltrating... interesting.
...a group...their agendas... interesting.
...a group...suddenly have... interesting.
...other side...in their own... interesting.

You're some writer, Dave.

Cut me a break, I missed an "s" on the end of idealogue. Sometimes I
type faster than I should. This type of banter does not require my
full attention to grammatical detail.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:35:32 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:


I find it interesting that the group of people who's idealogue have
been infiltrating the mass media and educational institutions in order
to rewrite history and promote their agendas for years now, suddenly
have a problem when the other side tries to counter it in their own
arena.

Dave


Hmmmmmmm. A dozen or so posts ago, you claimed you could produce your
autobiography because you wrote well.

As a former teacher of English, I'd give you a D- or perhaps an F for
this gem of a paragraph.

Let's see...a quick scan...

...a group of people who's... interesting.
...who's idealogue... interesting.
...who's idealogue has been infiltrating... interesting.
...a group...their agendas... interesting.
...a group...suddenly have... interesting.
...other side...in their own... interesting.

You're some writer, Dave.

Cut me a break, I missed an "s" on the end of idealogue. Sometimes I
type faster than I should. This type of banter does not require my
full attention to grammatical detail.

Dave



Really? Gosh, I thought for sure the word you wanted was ideology or
ideologue. A careful writer would know the difference between idealogue
and ideologue.

And choosing the word idealogue was not your only error. Your subjects
and verbs are in disagreement, among other problems.

A group of people whose
whose idealogy
whose idealogy has been infiltrating
a group...its agenda
a group ....suddenly has...
other side...in its own...

Had you been in one of the bonehead English classes I taught, you would
have received a D- if I were being charitable, but, more likely, an F.

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:22:13 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:35:32 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:


I find it interesting that the group of people who's idealogue have
been infiltrating the mass media and educational institutions in order
to rewrite history and promote their agendas for years now, suddenly
have a problem when the other side tries to counter it in their own
arena.

Dave


Hmmmmmmm. A dozen or so posts ago, you claimed you could produce your
autobiography because you wrote well.

As a former teacher of English, I'd give you a D- or perhaps an F for
this gem of a paragraph.

Let's see...a quick scan...

...a group of people who's... interesting.
...who's idealogue... interesting.
...who's idealogue has been infiltrating... interesting.
...a group...their agendas... interesting.
...a group...suddenly have... interesting.
...other side...in their own... interesting.

You're some writer, Dave.

Cut me a break, I missed an "s" on the end of idealogue. Sometimes I
type faster than I should. This type of banter does not require my
full attention to grammatical detail.

Dave



Really? Gosh, I thought for sure the word you wanted was ideology or
ideologue. A careful writer would know the difference between idealogue
and ideologue.

And choosing the word idealogue was not your only error. Your subjects
and verbs are in disagreement, among other problems.

A group of people whose
whose idealogy
whose idealogy has been infiltrating
a group...its agenda
a group ....suddenly has...
other side...in its own...

Had you been in one of the bonehead English classes I taught, you would
have received a D- if I were being charitable, but, more likely, an F.

I doubt that you ever taught English. You reasoning is haphazard and
weak. There is no issue with my verbiage, even if I occasionally make
small spelling errors. You logic is flawed, your debate skills
non-existant. I'd have given you an F....

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:22:13 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:35:32 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:


I find it interesting that the group of people who's idealogue have
been infiltrating the mass media and educational institutions in order
to rewrite history and promote their agendas for years now, suddenly
have a problem when the other side tries to counter it in their own
arena.

Dave


Hmmmmmmm. A dozen or so posts ago, you claimed you could produce your
autobiography because you wrote well.

As a former teacher of English, I'd give you a D- or perhaps an F for
this gem of a paragraph.

Let's see...a quick scan...

...a group of people who's... interesting.
...who's idealogue... interesting.
...who's idealogue has been infiltrating... interesting.
...a group...their agendas... interesting.
...a group...suddenly have... interesting.
...other side...in their own... interesting.

You're some writer, Dave.

Cut me a break, I missed an "s" on the end of idealogue. Sometimes I
type faster than I should. This type of banter does not require my
full attention to grammatical detail.

Dave



Really? Gosh, I thought for sure the word you wanted was ideology or
ideologue. A careful writer would know the difference between idealogue
and ideologue.

And choosing the word idealogue was not your only error. Your subjects
and verbs are in disagreement, among other problems.

A group of people whose
whose idealogy
whose idealogy has been infiltrating
a group...its agenda
a group ....suddenly has...
other side...in its own...

Had you been in one of the bonehead English classes I taught, you would
have received a D- if I were being charitable, but, more likely, an F.

I doubt that you ever taught English. You reasoning is haphazard and
weak. There is no issue with my verbiage, even if I occasionally make
small spelling errors. You logic is flawed, your debate skills
non-existant. I'd have given you an F....

Dave



"You reasoning," eh? Thank you.