Yes, indeed I agree. I hope you are not inferring that I’m either an ideologue or paranoid though, because that would certainly skirt the boundaries of the rules here in Great Debates and turn this forum into nothing less than a place to exchange ad hominems.
Anyways, to look back at what I actually said, I said “every group, every person” is biased. And that is fact that isn’t something that is up for debate. Being biased doesn’t mean you are an ideologue, and just because an organization or an individual has a bias does not mean it must affect their work to a damaging degree. I’ve had extensive academic training in economics, which is a social science. In my academic experience in virtually any thing I was involved in that involved research it was stressed that we look at things without our biases.
But to deny that we are biased is a folly, and that is all that I meant with my comment. For example if I was doing a paper examining the impact of protective steel tariffs, and I had a father who held his job at a steel mill solely because of the protective tariffs then I would be clearly biased. But my research, if I followed my training, would be fairly unbiased. I would use facts, I would base my conclusions on tests and experiments, in short I would brutally adhere to the scientific method and intensively vet any sources I used. And I would be certain to look at the whole picture, and examine facts that both support and damage my reasoning and my conclusions.
I’m going to ask that if we continue this conversation further you first make sure you understand the definition of words that you comment on. Because instantly associating the word bias, or having bias, with being an ideologue shows that you don’t understand the nature and multifaceted aspects of the word bias.
Devil’s advocate is a position that can be assumed on any topic. I’ll do it here briefly. To set it up, I’m an Islamic Fundamentalist “terrorist” and here is what I think:
“It is unfortunate that I must strike fear into the Western world by killing and destroying. It is unfortunate indeed. However, Western society is decadent, and the only way that I can save Western society from itself and save my own society is to destroy the foundations of Western society. I must, through the use of fear and mayhem, tear down the status quo and force Western society to reexamine itself, so that ultimately it comes to realize the righteousness of MY path, and in doing so become favored by God and blessed in the afterlife.”
There, that fictional person obviously sees positive connotations to the word.
I would certainly be opposed to the suppression of a major news story within a media organization that was dedicated to reporting on things like foreign affairs. I wouldn’t care if VH1 decided not to show this story because it’s obviously outside their viewer base and is patently inappropriate there for most general purposes.
Here is the thing though, in my saying that a conservative outlet will pick stories that appeal to conservative interests that does not mean I’m saying they should suppress any stories that hurt the “Republican cause.” You say Fox News is lying or biased because they (hypothetically) will report more on the human right’s abuses of Saddam Hussein as opposed to CNN which reported more on the lack of UN approval.
The fact is to over-report on either of those things, is a clear cut form of bias. To only or heavily report on Hans Blix and his lack of support would be taking a stance on the whole thing as a news organization, it would be trying to pound into viewers heads that you should be against the war and THIS is why.
A perfect news organization would try to show all the views, the inhumane aspects of Saddam’s regime, the possible threats of Saddam’s regime, and the rebuttals to those (which would include lack of WMDs.) Now I think Fox News and CNN both reported on the lack of UN approval and both reported on Saddam’s human right’s abuses. Where the bias seeps in is which one gets the most coverage.
And thinking that one deserves more coverage than another is itself an internal bias.
My opinion is on issues like this it is very difficult to completely eliminate the bias. You are always going to be showing one thing more than the other, or some aspects of a story to the detriment of other aspects (this as a function of limited airtime.)
In some cases, yes. To move the term conservative more to the term “Republican” (which I must do for this argument because, although I am a die hard conservative I only support the Republican party when it follows my ideals and I feel it best represents me, to put things in tangible form we must actually go to the party names) the Watergate affair hurt the Republican party. If the press had never rooted out Nixon’s actions the Republican party would have stood a much better chance of winning the election in 1976.
Just as the Democratic party would certainly have had it’s interests better served if the media didn’t report on things like Robert Byrd’s KKK connections or Bill Clinton’s sexual indiscretions.
As far as the “political ideology” of conservatism, it isn’t much affected by individual news stories that much.
But to get back to your statement, you make the assumption that just because Fox News may decide to report more on human right’s abuses that they are ignoring the lack of UN approval. Fox News certainly reported on Hans Blix, and I never even said hypothetically that they didn’t or shouldn’t. But to ONLY show condemnations for the war (which is about all you will get from Hans Blix) is equivalent to condemning the war yourself (as a media outlet.)