Hi Foxy

for years I have read stuff from Bolt. His integrity is far more in tact than yours on olo.

Media bias is simply a fact of life. Anyone who absorbs ANY media without recognising that it will have some bias, is simply naive beyond help.

Bias has always existed as far back as we know. When the Egyptians wrote about Kadesh they were biased. Herodotus was biased toward Kimon's father.

There are two ways to arm yourself against bias. One is to pick out the facts from the media you read/hear, ignore the opinion and form your own opinion. I recently posted a link to an article here where I urged the readers to do just that.

The other way is read widely and get multiple views so that one bias will offset another. In the past I've urged Foxy to expand her reading. Relying on the ABC,NYT and other left leaning media solely, is to be inevitably led down the garden path.

I think part of the phenomena around Trump Derangement Syndrome and those that hopelessly fell for the whole Russian collusion saga and the rage that ensued, was that many were so misled by their media that they couldn't fathom the outcome and were outraged by the unexpected outcome.

If you solely relied on ABC/NYT etc you were sure that Hillary was a certainty. When it wasn't they reacted with outrage at their own naivety.

There is always bias. There will always be bias. Read widely to defeat it and learn to pick out the facts from the propaganda.

It used to be the editor and specialist columnists who produced opinions for readers to consider and make up their own minds. Now, with television, we have every hack and boy/girl learner reporter handing out instructions, not opinions, with sneers and other facial expressions making it quite clear what they think and, therefore, what their audiences should think.

I prefer straight reporting, not lectures. However, if the independent media wants to toss its opinions in, that's fine if they can square it with their advertisers, who keep them in business. It is not fine when a public broadcaster, dependent on taxpayers for its existence, pulls the same stunt. Anyone employed by the government is a public servant, and public servants should not be forcing their views on the public. No other departmental officials would get away with doing it.The ABC is in continuous breach of its charter, and it should be abolished. Government owned media is the stuff of totalitarian countries. At the very least, it's out of date. Leave the rabble raising to the Nine Network and The Guardian, who actually earn their own keep.

I now get suspicious when someone brings up bias. I get that way because people have used the term to dismiss my perspectives that they want to dismiss. If bias is looked at when you want to dismiss something, and bias is ignored when you support something, that is a red flag. There is something amiss in sencerity and honesty.

That said, being aware of your own bias is a good thing. You can look at your support or your convictions in light of whether you relate to a story or to a person, or because you have sympathy to their struggles and their plight. Think on the lines with self suspecision "do I agree because it might be true, or does the truth actually matter."

Bias in the media is a different beast. You get to shape the stories you work on, or only work on the stories that are in agreement with a bias (yours or the new organization's). You focus on stories that say one thing and ignore stories that say the other thing. News agencies that report on a conservative narrative versus news orginizations that report on a liberal naritive, are both showing a bias in their reporting because of what they report on, as well as how they report on it. This is both something that day with news branding themselves to a certian audience, as well as the news agency or the reporters having a bias they hold to.

Because of the element of reporting to certian audiences, media will always have a bias in their reporting.

Thanks for all of your contributions thus far.

We've seen that people in different walks of life
may interpret the same phenomenon - whether it is
a demonstration, a PM's policies, a religious
doctrine, or even court trials - in a very different
way.

In other words, people tend to see the world from a
viewpoint of subjectivity - an interpretation based on
personal values and experiences.

We have seen that journalists and political commentators,
and even lawyers, and other professionals, can adopt
varying perspectives on the same subject and or problem
and can come to different and even contradictory
conclusions as a result.

This fact raises a very important issue.

Is it really possible to understand things from a
viewpoint of objectivity - an interpretation that eliminates
the influence of personal values and experiences?

If the world consisted simply of some self evident reality
that everyone perceived in exactly the same way, there
might be no disagreement among observers.

But the truth of the matter is that what we see in the
world is determined by what exists "out there".

It is shaped by what our past experience has prepared us to
see and by what we consciously or unconsciously want to see.

The thing is as has been pointed out each of us is
inclined to perceive facts selectively and to interpret them
accordingly.

That is inevitably true of journalists, commentators,
and others whose outlook is also influenced by their
background, training, education, and prior experiences.

Many journalists are well-educated, urban, middle-class,
and they naturally tend to interpret reality differently
from people who do not share those characteristics.

Their background and interests for example
might make them significantly more open-minded
depending on
their background, education, training and prior
experiences.

Therefore inevitably they, like anyone else will be
guilty of some measure of bias.

This problem of bias is particularly acute in matters whose
subject matter involves issues of deep human and moral
concern.

What we need to ask is how can the problem be resolved?

runner,

So you think that Andrew has more integrity
than me?

Seeing as you don't know either one of us -
that says more about you than we need to know.