Is there (such a thing as) an unbiased source of info?

After looking about quite a bit, I’m finding that every source I can find (talking primarily online, but TV, newspapers too as far as I see) is distinctly biased. That is to say they are all quite clearly pro-Arab, Anti-Arab, Pro-War, Anti-War or some other distinct added-in-viewpoint over and above raw facts.

I can find a couple articles (though no wholistic source) that tread the line by basically saying BOTH sides have fault and have behaved badly, but nobody that just tries to give the hard facts without drawing partisan conclusions – or at best, surrounding facts with highly connotive language (e.g. you can’t say “The Evil Aggressors did X” or “The Brutal, Murdering Dictator did Y” and claim to be unbiased even if X and Y are pure matters of fact)

Interestingly enough, I find that a lot of the middle-east based sites have the most seemingly-factual info offered, but typically offer it along with highly-charged language that calls their “facts” into question (in my mind).

So, is it unrealistic to think there is/could be/can be a truly “unbiased” source of facts? Is that a pipe dream? Is it valid – perhaps a “news” organization SHOULD have a bias and draw conclusions for its readers – though I personally prefer to think for myself rather than have someone else do it…

Examples (particularly if you think you have an “unbiased” source are solicited to support the discussion.

Is there (such a thing as) an unbiased source of info?

Yes there is: Me! For unbiased info please send a check or money order in the amount of $100 to:

Unbiased Information Resource
c/o js_africanus
123 Fake Street
Bellaire, MI
49615
Naw, I’m just kidding. I have no idea.

DrChuckie, I’d say unbiased info is a patent impossibility.

I also believe that an unbiased source of information is impossible. Get your info from several sources, decide for yourself which is credible or not.

“You can only believe half of what you read from the newspapers, and it itakes a smart man to know which half.”

I dunno who said that but I thought it wa smart.

That’s my fear/concern too, bordelond.

It’s really a crying shame too. People here cry “cite! cite!” constantly, but the bottom line is every bit of information out there has had a bias glommed onto it before it reaches anyone.

Of course everything has a bias. Just decidiing what to cover in what order is a bias. But there are different kinds of bias. Some sources you need to worry if the facts are real; others just what is out of context or only part of the story reported. Some are more biased than others.

If it is a subject that you really care about then you get your information as seen through several eyes, and you get as close to primary sources as possible. Many sources I will believe facts from but not interpretation or conclusions.

So it is not that the call for “Cite!” is useless, but that just having a cite is not enough. You have to be a critical consumer of these cites … is this a source that would lie or just distort or selectively report? if you can trust that the facts are real but selected then what other sources can you get that tell the rest of the facts? How primary is the information? (I believe a cite out of a transcript of a speech more than someones interpretation of the speech, for example, I believe people who were at a negotiation more than a group reporting what was said third hand, for another) how biased is the source and which way?

In short, you can’t be lazy if you really want to know.

“Unbiased” is usually a codeword for “agrees with the speaker’s prejudices”. What I find to be most offensive is how every news source around the world seems to do its best to fan all flames of discord as high as possible. Invariably, they suck up to their local honchos and paint anything that said honchos don’t agree with in as negative a light as possible. The only time this isn’t the case is when there is more than one set of honchos in a country, then the sources line up behind the various groups and are just as bad.

I’m having trouble tracking it down, but I recall seeing a study (by whom?) purporting to rate the degree of bias by various media.

As I recall, the Atlantic Monthly was rated quite highly - in that it did not favor a specific consistent perspective. But that’s not really a news magazine, and only comes out monthly.

I’ll keep looking.

Actually, I tend to think of NPR’s All Things Considered and Morning Edition to be reasonable unbiased not because I agree with them, but because the hard-core Dems I know blast it for being right-wing and the hard-core Republicans I know blast it for being left-wing.

[quote]
Originally posted by DrChuckie
People here cry “cite! cite!” constantly, but the bottom line is every bit of information out there has had a bias glommed onto it before it reaches anyone.
I must concur with those who maintain that some world-view bias implies that the source is not credible. There may be some inherent bias in the New England Journal of Medicine or The Lancet, but that doesn’t mean that they’re just as good as Rush Limbaugh for information.

Well it seems we all pretty much agree on this one. I also think that unbiased information doesnt exist. One of the biggest challenges of being human is to keep an opened mind but i think we always lean a certain direction on a topic although it may be only slight.

Well, http://www.rashomon.com doesn’t seem to link to anything, yet.

I would call a photograph – in certain circumstances – an unbiased source of information. As we all know, a photograph can be staged or arranged, so you have to work carefully to avoid such an accusation. I offer the following example:

Say that you want to have a photograph of an “average” day on the Washington D.C. Mall, for whatever reason. Obviously, a single photograph will not do, because that depends on the photographer’s definition of “average.” Even two or three photographs will not do. Therefore, you set it up thusly:

Take one photograph a day at the same time (say, 2:30 PM) for 365 days, from the same perspective and with the same setup each time. The perspective should be more general than specific. Instead of focusing on the Washington Monument, stand on the steps of the Capital Building and take a picture going down the length of the Mall. Bundle all 365 photographs into a single volume entitled “A year of days on…[and so fourth],” being very specific with the title. I would argue that you have here an unbiased source.

Instead of relying on what the photographer assumes an average day, you have every single day for a year (or whatever other time period). It is shot from the same, wide-angle perspective each time. The volume of what is enclosed in the photograph makes it impossible to have any events staged. The constant time of 2:30 means that the daily photograph cannot be intentionally arranged to be taken after a specific event has just happened.

From this series of photographs, what can you deduce? You can observe the expressions of people going about their lives. You can see if there are people playing games, or walking about grim-faced. You can see if there are security guards keeping people off. You can see the AIDS quilt when it gets displayed. Everything is there, unbiased.

Does anyone see any flaws in this argument, assuming no “government conspiracies” to twist the direction of the pictures? The only flaw I see is depending on the photographer’s assertation that it was taken at 2:30 each day, but there are some (cumbersome) ways to work around this.

-Psi Cop

You say you want an unbiased opinion, yet one that decisivly chooses one or another side. You do know that always, without fail, if you pick one side or another you will be seen as biased by someone, somewhere, always. I think I concur with “Dogface.” To any one person, the only unbiased source of information is one that always agrees with that particular person’s beliefs. Interesting to note, however, that it could (and frequently does) run the opposite way: a person who, for some reason or another, strongly desires for a particular source to be unbiased might subconsiously make their opinion match what that source says.

About issues where there is no real dispute there can be unbiased reporting. Factual things easily ascertainable.
Ex// The US has 50 states. Iraq is predominantly Muslim. 2:30 on the Mall. Etc.

Ex// The US is a Judeo-Christian nation.
That statement differs only slightly from the Iraq-Muslim statement above. But, if you think about it, it is not only almost certainly wrong but it is loaded with bias and assumptions. Sometimes people write sloppily (as in the case of the “J-C nation” comment) and create the perception of bias without actually feeling as strongly, or wrongly, as interpreted.

In the realm of real disputes, either factual or ideological, the best one can do is report the many factions opinions and evidence and let the news consumer or reader decide. Ex// Is Abortion Immoral?: A panel discussion.

Other times bias slips in through poorly formulated poll questions. Sometimes bias is institutional, something as simple as word choices. Bias is everywhere, but does not create the impossibility of reason, or make me feel that quality information is unavailable.

Well, choosing a time can introduce bias, just as choosing a place from which to take the photograph. And I don’t know a whole lot about photography, so excuse my ignorance, but I would assume it would be possible to distort the pictures through different types of film, different filters (making things fuzzy or changing the color slightly), choosing the focus, etc.

I am not disturbed by bias when bias is accompanied by disclosure. Some people hate Rush Limbaugh for his bias, for example. But I don’t mind Limbaugh because he says what he is and what he believes. It’s when people have biases and claim not to that I get annoyed.

As an example, Juan Williams used to be one of the hosts on Crossfire (he may still be, I have no idea). He also worked for NPR. On Crossfire, he was rabidly Democratic, but on NPR he’s unbiased? I don’t think that works.

Julie