I don’t know. First, however, they need to be pieces of evidence that would pass an English libel trial, not circumstantial speculations.
That’s a rather high standard. To show libel, I’d have to show by preponderance of the evidence that: a statement was made; that was defamatory; and that the writer knew or should have known that it was false; or, if applied to a public figure, that the statement was made with actual malice concerning its falsity.
But if that’s the standard… that’s why we have the second thread. No one has made any allegation of bias against Fox News that would meet the standard described above. So I guess we can safely put that to rest. NPR is NOT biased; neither is Fox News.
Okay, but so what? Are we to then assume that racial disparities in employment are nonproblematic because they could possibly be explained by cultural proclivities? Well, I have a problem with that because that is not how science works. If a disparity is apparent, then we need to figure out why it exists before we decide what we should do about it. Whether or not we should do something about it, depends on whether the observed disparities carries with it negative consequences. I think a strong case can be made that employment disparities do have negative implications particularly when the most empowering and high-paying jobs are dominated by only one or two types of people, and when occupations that exist to serve communities are hindered when the people served don’t see themselves behind that badge, that stethoscope, or that gavel.
Saying a statistic is “stunning” only means it goes against expectations. It doesn’t assign judgement to the observation or propose what to do about it. If you expect that blacks and Hispanics are supposed to be a lot less qualified than whites and others, then that statistic would not be so “stunning” to you.
I think you are misusing the word biased. I think the more appropriate word here is “objective”. To only speak and see in terms of bare-bone facts that are uncolored by adjectives would be objective. If I were asked to describe a 500 lb man and I called him a “very large guy”–instead of giving his numerical weight and height–would it be fair to say I’m being biased when you can’t really say what I’m being biased towards? Afterall, “very large” doesn’t inherently carry with it any negative implications. It is a subjective statement, though.
NPR is not objective because it includes opinion pieces, interview snippets with error-prone humans, analysis that is subject to disagreement depending on vantage point, as well as irrefutable fact. That doesn’t mean that it is biased, though. But it is perfectly possible that NPR represents equal amounts of liberal and conservative subjective viewpoints. Although at any given second one subjective voice may be heard above another, it is still possible that when the day is done, all subjective voices have had approximately equal airtime.
So the challenge for those who perceive bias in NPR is to show that the station has a net ideological slant, not that there are one or two instances of it representing a particular perspective or subjective idea. I don’t think Bricker has done a very convincing job of proving that it has done anything more than the latter.
That is not the standard at all, just my opinion. I do not speak for the entire board. As for the rest of your statement, I need to go back to Doperball V , and have no feeling of needing to convince you of something you know is perfectly true, that Fox New shows bias.
Just speak for yourself, then. Is that the standard, or not, in your personal opinion? If it is, does it apply to Fox as well? And if it’s not, what was the purpose of post 181?
That’s a fair approach.
But how do you go about that?
Again, that’s why we have two threads. What I’ve offered here has been mirrored by what’s been offered in the Fox News thread. How do you believe that I should go about showing a net ideological slant?
Yes.
Bricker, since you’re the guy with the problem here, why haven’t you yet offered to us what you see as proof of bias. Is one quote enough for you? Three words uttered by one reporter as part of a story? How about if the sun rises and it’s windy out?
I am truly curious, after reading this and the Fox News thread, at what your criteria would be that would “prove” bias.
Also, what criteria will you accept as proof of objectivity?
really, that’s your problem to tell us… how would you go about showing a net idealogical slant? Because that’s what you keep arguing exist, but you don’t seem to be able to show it to the rest of us.
All the flailing about re standards, evidence, proof and so on is typical of these debates, and the partisans will never be convinced no matter what is offered.
My simple test is this: can I readily tell from a news story what the reporter’s opinion is and how he/she would like me to perceive the facts? If yes, the story is biased and unprofessional.
Works great.
No, it isn’t. I’ve offered several tests, which have been rejected. So now I ask you: what will YOU accept as evidence?
You forgot to answer the next question:
If it is, does it apply to Fox as well?
notice the fact there were two example of “yes” in my post. Are you really that blind?
Doperball is going pretty slowly. I see that Bricker asked me to clarify something already pretty clear, and is now logged off. Bo made some good points, and see no way Bricker can support his position, in light of what arguements have been made. None the less, I will give him a leg up. Go to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/bk4ch11.htm, section 13. It is all very clear. 
How do you know you’re right? Do you have personal, off camera discussions with these reporters? How do you know your picture of their personal views, deduced during the broadcast, is accurate? What is your verification process? I’m curious here. Presumably you don’t believe Arnold Schwarzenegger is actually a cybernetic organism from the future even though he certainly looked/talked/behaved like one on the screen. What special insight gives you the ability to see the true feelings and motives of the evening news correspondents/anchors? And how do you confirm your impressions?
Enjoy,
Steven
I see. You’re using the “title” as part of the post. I’m not used to that.
OK. Then Fox News is not biased. There’s nothing they’ve ever done that rises to the level of a libel trial’s standard of proof.
Also… from the IMHO thread:
Here you’ve come out and stated your belief… a belief that I think any honest reader will agree is biased.
And I’d say this is a good illustration of why you, in particular, are going to be unable to reasonably evaluate evidence of bias. You honestly believe that conservative think tanks, by definition, exist to provide rationalizations after the fact, while liberal think tanks exist to find the truth, impartially.
::Sly smile:: Tell me, how do you define how a libel trial goes, Rick?
How many cases can we find about conservative think tanks claiming the president is 100% right. How many cases can we find of think tanks finding a case to be “The most likely solution to a problem”?
The plaintiff must show by preponderance of the evidence that: a statement was made; that was defamatory; and that the writer knew or should have known that it was false; or, if applied to a public figure, that the statement was made with actual malice concerning its falsity.
I need to get baack to The Dungeon, but:
Go to this site, and type in fox. Find any story. I believe it will serve as proof.
“We’re going to provide straight, factual information … with less ‘spin’ and less ‘face time’ for anchors,” Ailes said when fox news was first launched.
John Gibson of Fox News Channel (12/15/00) would rather not know what really happened in Florida: “Is this a case where knowing the facts actually would be worse than not knowing? I mean, should we burn those ballots, preserve them in amber, or shred them?”
Leading the cry against the trashing of the White House was the Fox News Channel. Virtually every major Fox personality reported it as fact, often expressing their own personal outrage. Guests on the channel chimed in, condemning the Clintons and their staffers. Consider the following reports:
–Brit Hume (1/25/01): “By the way, the reported vandalism in those White House offices now includes power and phone cords cut… trash dumped on floors, desk drawers emptied onto floors, pornographic pictures left in computer printers, scatological messages left on voice mail, and cabinets and drawers glued shut. And the Washington Times reports that the presidential 747 that flew Bill and Hillary Clinton to New York on inauguration day was stripped bare. The plane’s porcelain, china… and silverware, and salt and pepper shakers, blankets and pillow cases, nearly all items bearing the presidential seal, were taken by Clinton staffers who went along for the ride. The Washington Times quoted a military steward as saying that even a supply of toothpaste was stolen from a compartment under a sink.”
–Sean Hannity (1/26/01): “Look, we’ve had these reports, very disturbing reports – and I have actually spoken to people that have confirmed a lot of the reports – about the trashing of the White House. Pornographic materials left in the printers. They cut the phone lines. Lewd and crude messages on phone machines. Stripping of anything that was not bolted down on Air Force One. $200,000 in furniture taken out.”
–Fred Barnes (1/27/01): “Now, you know what else helped Bush have such a good week? It was the contrast with the Clintons’ sleazy departure from the White House, which is a hot story in itself… You had the trashing of the White House itself. We don’t know how much, but the typewriters, the voicemail, the graffiti on the walls and so on, reflecting, I think, a real bitterness that they should not have reflected, at least in that.”
–Bill O’Reilly (1/26/01): “I mean, the price tag right now is about $200,000, so that’s a felony right there.”
–Oliver North, radio host (1/26/01, “Hannity & Colmes”): “There’s an awful lot about this whole administration that never looked right to many of us. And of course, their closing act in this whole thing, which was basically trashing the White House, you know, pillaging what was available on Air Force One… We should expect from white trash what they did at the White House.”
–Paula Zahn (1/26/01): “All right, but this is the White House, for God’s sakes. We’re not talking about people living in a fraternity.”
–Tony Snow (1/28/01): “When I first heard about reported vandalism by disgruntled Clinton-Gore staffers, I got a little bit steamed. I’ve got a certain affection for the White House, due in no small part to my own service there during the first Bush administration. So, inspired by my experience and fond memories, I dashed off an angry newspaper column about the incident. But then the Bush team did something very wise. It did nothing, and that was the right choice. Sometimes you have to look past little idiocies and outbursts, understanding that life’s just too short to fret over such things.”
“A little bit steamed” is putting it mildly: As the Kansas City Star reported (5/17/01), one of Snow’s syndicated newspaper columns was nearly a case study in dishonest reporting. Snow wrote that the White House “was a wreck” and that Air Force One “looked as if it had been stripped by a skilled band of thieves – or perhaps wrecked by a trailer park twister.”
Actually on this sort of thing I’m as non partisan as it gets. This is a simple matter of evidence. Hypothesis + testing + proof = valid theory.
Right now Bricker, you have suggestions and a hint of something that might possibly be a hint of bias. Out of the likely thousands of stories available, you have your interview, which is debatable; and three words, also debatable.
Do you understand why that is far from overwhelming? Do you understand why that is far from proof positive?
As far as this applying to fox news, of course. Do you think me so intellectually dishonest as to not apply the same standards to all media outlets? Now please stop bringing up fox news in this thread as though it were some form of trade off. I will not trade you an admission of fox news as unbiased for an admission of NPR unbiased (and I’m sure as hell not giving you my first round draft pick, so stop asking).
What I will say is that the existence of bias for both has yet to be determined.