Foxy,

I think the reality of bias on most issues comes from having two very different arguments about how best to address a problem.

We see this in lots of recent arguments.

whether or not have a jury system.

who leads, govt or public opinion.

should we stay in lockdown with regard to the virus.

is global warming caused by human activity.

should we protect our economy or simply rely on market forces.

should we regulate more.

should we reduce or raise levels of taxation.

should we privatise the ABC.

and so on it goes.

the search for absolute truth is important, but avoiding bias is difficult as we are all shaped by our own unique perspective and experience.

However, i feel from extensive debate, Aust's liberal democracy evolves mostly with policies that are acceptable to the majority, although a policy trend can always change.

To Foxy. You said:

<<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?>>

This is exactly the kind of reasoning that I would get suspicious about with regards to bringing up bias. Bias used as a term as to dismiss someone else's values or their experiences.

Think about this for a few seconds before reading on, because this is an important point. It's a red flag in reasoning.

My recommendation is to only consider what could be your own bias, not someone else's. If they value one thing there could be a reason for it. Or it could be a bias. You can't make that judgment call. What you can do is consider what they have to say and see if it has any merit behind it. Forget about bias and consentrate on merit.

The same issue is if their experience says one thing. That's not bias, that's time tested experience. If experience isn't always right (it isn't), it's still always worth consideration instead of dismissal.

Hi Chris,

Thank you for that.

How to resolve the problem of objectivity is
going to be difficult. I guess the first step would
be to recognise that subjectivity and objectivity are
not two neat and separate categories, they're really
matters of degree. All a journalist or any one can
do is exercise caution and try to be as objective
as possible.

This would of course involve a deliberate effort to
be conscious of one's own biases to that they can
be kept out of the process of research and interpretation.
No easy job.

The ethical code of journalism requires that journalists be
intellectually honest - and that they attempt to be
aware of their own values and not allow these values to
distort their work. (that is according to a journalist
friend of mine).

That they relentlessly hunt down the relevant facts and not
ignore those that are inconvenient. And that they not
manipulate data to prove a point, and that they not use
their research to suppress or misuse information.

Of course, we also have in our society the advantage
that we don't have to rely entirely on the integrity
of the individual journalists to ensure that objectivity
is strived for. When the material is published other
journalists or media can access the stories and attempt to
verify them as true or false.

Total objectivity is probably impossible to achieve since
some bias is always unconscious. But a self-conscious
effort to be as objective as possible will produce
vastly less biased results than not making the attempt.
In a perfect world that is what our media should strive
for.

yes, i agree with that last post Foxy. Well said.

An unbiased ABC, yes, no doubt in my mind at all.
The ABC that I know and love is short for a perfectly good and honest Alphabet.

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

Oh Foxy do you know George Pell personally. Or that say more about you than we need to know.