Discussion #2 - Deadline by Saturday, June 24, 2017 by 11:30 PM 2525 unread repl
ID: 108663 • Letter: D
Question
Discussion #2 - Deadline by Saturday, June 24, 2017 by 11:30 PM
2525 unread replies.2525 replies.
While between 65 and 85 percent of the public reports that they believe that the news media slant the news in one direction or another, the nature and impact of bias is actually quite complicated. On the one hand, news coverage can be politically biased, that is, specific media outlets could favor one political agenda over another. A popular claim, usually from the political right, is that the media are liberally biased.
Former CBS News reporter Bernard Goldberg, who claims that he is in dependent, argues in his best- selling book, Bias, that most reporters are liberal and therefore slant the news (even unknowingly) to favor liberal positions on issues. In fact, President Bush famously carried a copy of Goldberg’s book when it first appeared on the market! Media critic, and self- professed liberal, Eric Alterman’s What Liberal Media? is a response of sorts to Goldberg’s book as it debunks some of the claims Goldberg makes and offers an argument that the media are mostly conservatively biased (especially when it comes to the ideological persuasions of radio hosts and television political pundits).
Of course, political/ideological bias is but one way that the media can slant coverage. News and entertainment programming can be corporately biased.Corporate bias is news coverage that favors large corporations such as advertisers and media conglomerates. For example, if bad news befell General Electric (which owns NBC) or Disney (which owns ABC) and NBC failed to report on GE’s troubles or ABC put a positive spin on Disney’s problems, we could label their coverage as corporately biased. By the same token, if a prominent newspaper advertiser laid off workers, was indicted, or had a bad fiscal quarter that the newspaper either failed to cover or covered in a way that made the advertiser look good, we could once again conclude that the coverage was corporately biased.
Another kind of bias is concerned with the actual value of media programming itself. Commercial bias is bias that is designed to titillate readers, listeners, or viewers even if the information is not all that useful. For instance, a television news program’s focus on the latest scandals involving Paris Hilton might encourage people to watch even though a story on which technology jobs are growing at the fastest rate might be more useful to news consumers.
Commercial bias is often called “infotainment,” a slightly derogatory term for news coverage that is more flash than substance.
DISCUSSION 1: Which kind of bias do you think is the most dangerous? Why?
DISCUSSION 2: Which kind of bias do you see the most when you are watching, reading, or surfing for information? Does the most prominent bias vary by whether you are consuming news or entertainment information?
Explanation / Answer
DISCUSSION 1: Which kind of bias do you think is the most dangerous? Why?
Commercial bias is nothing but the news media are money-making businesses. As such, they must deliver a good product to their customers to make a profit. The customers of the news media are advertisers. The most important product the news media delivers to its customers are readers or viewers. Good is defined in numbers and quality of readers or viewers. The news media are biased toward conflict because conflict draws readers and viewers. Harmony is boring. Bias is alive and well in the American workplace. Although blatant examples of discrimination, racism and sexism are thankfully rare, subtle assumptions still exist about individuals based on the group to which they belong.
Unite simply, biases are preconceived judgments about the abilities, personality and values of someone you do not know. One of the biggest myths about bias is that the prejudgment is always a negative one. When we think of bias, we think of inaccurate and inappropriate statements like, "All men are sexist," "All women are hysterical". In fact, it is just as biased to say, "All men are assertive," "All women are nurturing" even though these are good characteristics most of us would love to be assertive, nurturing and artistic. The truth of the matter is that positive biases can be just as unfair and destructive as negative ones. Both restrict accurate perceptions of people's personalities and values, distort interactions with them and limit their ability to be themselves. Think, for example, of the awkward position that a man who is shy, retiring and soft-spoken is in, given the stereotype that men are assertive after all, our culture shouts, "Real men don't eat quiche." Because this man doesn't conform to the basically positive stereotype of assertiveness, he is considered a wimp or a weakling. If we were willing to look at each person as an individual, we would see this man as a gentle human being who doesn't need to conform to a culturally based bias.
Many of us fall into the trap of feeling good about our positive biases. Thinking that all Mexicans are family loving, all African Americans are musical, and all workers with disabilities are cheerful and brave provides us with the illusion that we are tolerant, loving people. In fact, these positive biases are just the flip side of racism or homophobia and can be just as destructive to workplace relationships.
DISCUSSION 2: Which kind of bias do you see the most when you are watching, reading, or surfing for information? Does the most prominent bias vary by whether you are consuming news or entertainment information?
Rates of perceived bias were low for the vast majority of activities, and did not differ by the degree of industry support or other event characteristics. Further study is needed to determine whether commercial influence persisted in more subtle forms that were difficult for participants to detect. In each of these cases, bias is introduced not through a direct quid-pro-quo but through subconscious attitudes and feelings of reciprocity that can arise when a speaker or course director has benefitted from industry. Because attitudes and feelings of reciprocity largely occur on a subconscious level, physicians often fail to recognize the ways in which they might be influenced and overestimate their ability to resist commercial influence. It is easy to be cynical and suspect the worst of motives, from greed to ignorance, but I have known many first-rate, highly concerned and seemingly well motivated physicians who, nevertheless, operate based upon gut feelings and personal beliefs even in the face of contrary scientific evidence. After years of rumination, it gradually dawned on me that there may be an underlying biological component to such behavior.
Once we realize that the brain has very powerful inbuilt involuntary mechanisms for assessing unconscious cognitive activity, it is easy to see how it can send into consciousness a message that we know something that we can't presently recall the modest tip-of-the-tongue feeling. At the other end of the spectrum would be the profound "feeling of knowing" that accompanies unconsciously held beliefs a major component of the unshakeable attachment to fundamentalist beliefs both religious and otherwise. I suspect that retreat into absolute ideologies is accentuated during periods of confusion, lack of governmental direction, economic chaos and information overload. At bottom, we are pattern recognizers who seek escape from ambiguity and indecision. If a major brain function is to maintain mental homeostasis, it is understandable how stances of certainty can counteract anxiety and apprehension. Even though I know better, I find myself somewhat reassured (albeit temporarily) by absolute comments such as, "the stock market always recovers," even when I realize that this may be only wishful thinking. My hope is the converse; we need to recognize that the feelings of certainty and conviction are involuntary mental sensations, not logical conclusions. Intuitions, gut feelings and hunches are neither right nor wrong but tentative ideas that must then be submitted to empirical testing.
In contrast to the idea that one generation tends to rely on print, another on television and still another the web, the majority of Americans across generations now combine a mix of sources and technologies to get their news each week. And the rapid growth in mobile technology is changing the mix. Among smartphone owners, 78 percent report using their device to get news in the last week. Seventy-three percent of tablet owners use their device to get news. And people with more devices tend to enjoy following the news more. News consumers who use more technology are more likely to report that they enjoy keeping up with the news and are more likely to say that it’s easier to keep up with the news today than it was five years ago. Not only do people consume news from many different devices, nearly half say they have no one preferred means of doing so. Furthermore, people access different reporting sources on a regular basis. When asked about their use of eight different reporting sources in the last week, Americans report using an average of between four and five sources.
Similarly, there are only small differences across age, political party, or socioeconomic status in the news topics people follow. For example, the percentage of people who say they follow news about local affairs, business and the economy, health and medicine, schools and education, and social issues, among other topics, differs little by generation. And, even for topics where younger news consumers are less avid followers than their elders, they still report high levels of interest. Another striking finding is that how Americans seek out the news changes markedly with the subject matter. When asked where they go for news on each topic, people are most likely to use specialized sources now to learn about 4 of the 15 topics probed: sports, entertainment, science and technology, and lifestyle news. They are most likely to turn to local TV for weather, traffic, crime, and health news. People turn to newspapers, whether in print or online, more than any other source specified, and in relatively high numbers for a wide range of topics. But they are most likely to turn to newspaper media for news about their local town or city, for news about arts and culture, and for news about schools and education.