Brussels Bombing
-
<p>If you can demonstrate the flaws in their methodology, do so.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="568602" data-time="1459389844">
<div>
<p>If you can demonstrate the flaws in their methodology, do so.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Isnt it obvious???</p>
<p>I am actually shocked you had to ask.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>You think that simplistic analysis which takes ZERO look at actual content is relevant to deciding bias? Seriously?? </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Good grief. But at least we know now that you believe Fox News when they say they are not biased.. I mean they talk about Obama LOTS..... FFS</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="568604" data-time="1459390793">
<p>Isnt it obvious???<br>
I am actually shocked you had to ask.<br>
<br>
You think that simplistic analysis which takes ZERO look at actual content is relevant to deciding bias? Seriously?? <br>
<br>
Good grief. But at least we know now that you believe Fox News when they say they are not biased.. I mean they talk about Obama LOTS..... FFS</p>
</blockquote>
<br><p>So you didn't read the entire article, specifically when it says it's testing for time spent on a particular side of politics disproportionately; '<em>we can check if the ABC gives significantly more time to one side of politics during elections</em>', nor <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.andrewleigh.org/pdf/MediaSlant.pdf'>this which it linked to</a>?</p> -
What does that even mean? Is it allowing people from the different parties to put their views across? Or is it reporting on the different parties? At any rate it's a pretty farking piss poor yardstick for determining whether or not there is bias.
-
Donsteppas right when he says the blogs in NZ whine about media bias when it's a story of one of their side doing something they'd prefer not to be in the public eye . I think outside of columnists our print media is pretty neutral , tv and radio far less so . Henry and Hosking are pretty obviously on the right and people like Hillary Barry and Campbell are obviously leftards . The few times I've listened to radio NZ it seemed to have a left bias , I'm pretty sure I'm not radio nzs target market and I haven't listened to it much though. <br><br>
I'm stoked Campbell is off the tv now, stuff like his interviews with Len Brown and Key over the gcsb not to mention ambushing Clark over corn gate were pretty disgraceful and he had two more complaints upheld even after he went off the air. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="568619" data-time="1459394368">
<div>
<p>So you didn't read the entire article, specifically when it says it's testing for time spent on a particular side of politics disproportionately; '<em>we can check if the ABC gives significantly more time to one side of politics during elections</em>', nor <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.andrewleigh.org/pdf/MediaSlant.pdf'>this which it linked to</a>?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Yes... and the info is still just as completely and utterly pointless. Just talking about a side means NOTHING when it comes to content bias. As I said Obama go more air time on Fox last election than his rival. His 'side' got LOTS of coverage. Going by that 'research' Fox has a pro Obama bias.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So is Fox biased or not? </p> -
The survey shows that both major parties got equal air time, or column inches, but without knowing whether they were positive or negative column inches, who can say which way they're biased?<br><br>
The problem is, if you analysed those stories, your own bias would skew the results. So you're never going to get a clean result.<br><br>
And if you did get as close as possible, there would be a shit load of people who disagree with it anyway. <br><br>
Look at climate change or wind farm syndrome. Never ending, because people don't want to agree with the research. They claim conspiracy... -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="568628" data-time="1459397238">
<div>
<p>The survey shows that both major parties got equal air time, or column inches, but without knowing whether they were positive or negative column inches, who can say which way they're biased?<br><br>
The problem is, if you analysed those stories, your own bias would skew the results. So you're never going to get a clean result.<br><br>
And if you did get as close as possible, there would be a shit load of people who disagree with it anyway.<br><br>
Look at climate change or wind farm syndrome. Never ending, because people don't want to agree with the research. They claim conspiracy...</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Good post until, the last sentence.I You make it sound like science and research should be above continued debate and discussion. It has not ended for many people because they believe the research is shonky an the system profiting from it is corrupt.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="568626" data-time="1459396502">
<div>
<p>Yes... and the info is still just as completely and utterly pointless. Just talking about a side means NOTHING when it comes to content bias. As I said Obama go more air time on Fox last election than his rival. His 'side' got LOTS of coverage. Going by that 'research' Fox has a pro Obama bias.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So is Fox biased or not? </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I refer you to my <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/index.php/topic/41856-brussels-bombing/page-5#entry568619'>previous post</a> which you seem to have quoted yet not understood. It's difficult to explain this more clearly; that particular test was whether they gave '<em>significantly more time to one side of politics during elections</em>', not whether the <em>time spent on either side</em> was biased. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="568645" data-time="1459403326">
<div>
<p>I refer you to my <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/index.php/topic/41856-brussels-bombing/page-5#entry568619'>previous post</a> which you seem to have quoted yet not understood. It's difficult to explain this more clearly; that particular test was whether they gave '<em>significantly more time to one side of politics during elections</em>', not whether the <em>time spent on either side</em> was biased. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>No I got it , you repeating yourself does not make the research any more credible when it comes to deciding bias. And if you understand it as well as you claim, you are doing a piss poor job of showing it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Do you think Fox is biased?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="568646" data-time="1459403788">
<div>
<p>No I got it </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>No you really didn't. Because if you did you wouldn't be moving the goal posts with your ridiculous follow up question about the 'fair and impartial' Fox News.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For the last time: The test in question is not whether they treated with contempt one side of politics and submitting their policies to biased critique whilst putting a halo around the opposition, but if they gave '<em>significantly more time to one side of politics during elections</em>'.</p> -
<div> </div>
<div>Yes I got it. My mistake was thinking you were actually trying to make a valid point in relation to my point about bias. You clearly were not. My mistake, I gave you more credit than you deserved.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I thought when you talked of bias in post 119, you were talking about bias in the context discussed in this thread instead you just bought up a topic nobody was discussing and that was completely and utterly irrelevant.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But have fun with your quaint little study that would also show that Fox news is biased towards Obama and Whaleloil is biased towards Labour.. great work.. </div> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="568651" data-time="1459404750">
<p>Yes I got it. My mistake was thinking you were actually trying to make a valid point in relation to my point about bias. You clearly were not. My mistake, I gave you more credit than you deserved.</p>
</blockquote>
<br><p>No, your mistake was thinking this was all about you and your continual and baffling misunderstanding of the link I provided.<br>
</p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
<p>I thought when you talked of bias in post 119, you were talking about bias in the context discussed in this thread instead you just bought up a topic nobody was discussing and that was completely and utterly irrelevant.</p>
</blockquote>
<br><p>That claim may have some validity if no one had mentioned tv outlet bias, <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/index.php/topic/41856-brussels-bombing/page-3#entry568031'>specifically</a> <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/index.php/topic/41856-brussels-bombing/page-4#entry568450'>the ABC</a>.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="568654" data-time="1459405245">
<div>
<p>No, your mistake was thinking this was all about you and your continual and baffling misunderstanding of the link I provided.<br>
</p>
<br><p>That claim may have some validity if no one had mentioned tv outlet bias, <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/index.php/topic/41856-brussels-bombing/page-3#entry568031'>specifically</a> <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/index.php/topic/41856-brussels-bombing/page-4#entry568450'>the ABC</a>.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I was the one who brought up the ABC. Are you saying that the info you linked to above proves that the ABC does not have a left wing bias?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="568658" data-time="1459405918"><p>I was the one who brought up the ABC.</p></blockquote>Yeah I know that...<br> <br><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote"><p>Are you saying that the info you linked to above proves that the ABC does not have a left wing bias?</p></blockquote><br>As well as anyone has proved anything about media bias relating to the ABC. Admittedly there's not a lot of studies that look at it, but the problem is the ones that have been done don't show the bias people complain about.<br><br>So we come back to the issue of cognitive bias when decrying the alleged partisanship - just because they're giving your politician a grilling doesn't make them biased. Particularly when you'd expect that Government Ministers would be interviewed more often and held accountable.
-
<p>So we're back to the issue of whether those particular studies actually prove anything. For the reasons given by 3 posters above, I'd say they don't do anything of the sort.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As mentioned, you could probably apply the same methodology to Fox News and get the same result. Would that then make Fox News fair and balanced? Of course it wouldn't.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="568674" data-time="1459407470"><p>As mentioned, you could probably apply the same methodology to Fox News and get the same result. Would that then make Fox News fair and balanced? Of course it wouldn't.</p></blockquote><br>If you applied the same methodology as that in question to Fox News it might well show that they spend <em>'significantly more time to one side of politics during elections'</em>. Or not. It's just one among many measures listed in the Guardian article, don't get hung up about it as if it's the only one. It's not.
-
<p>I'm not getting hung up about it, I just think it's a really flawed method of testing bias.</p>
-
<br><br><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="568630" data-time="1459397654"><p>Good post until, the last sentence.I You make it sound like science and research should be above continued debate and discussion. It has not ended for many people because they believe the research is shonky an the system profiting from it is corrupt.</p></blockquote>
<br><br>
I don't think science is above further discussion. That is the very nature of science - it is not a destination, it is a journey.<br><br>
There's a difference, because bias is perception and opinion, that cannot be empirically measured. <br><br>
And at the risk of jangling Winger's spider senses, if you're swimming against the current of research on climate change, and all the observable facts and evidence compiled, then best of luck to you. <br><br>
Debate the degree of effect on this topic by all means, because that is where the science is moving.<br><br>
I think shonky climate science is probably going to be a metric shit load cheaper than shonky fossil fuel dealings, based on the evidence. <br><br>
In any case, their capitalist leanings should be applauded, right? -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="568670" data-time="1459406970">
<div>
<p>Yeah I know that...<br>
<br><br>
As well as anyone has proved anything about media bias relating to the ABC. Admittedly there's not a lot of studies that look at it, but the problem is the ones that have been done don't show the bias people complain about.<br><br>
So we come back to the issue of cognitive bias when decrying the alleged partisanship - just because they're giving your politician a grilling doesn't make them biased. Particularly when you'd expect that Government Ministers would be interviewed more often and held accountable.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Way to miss the point yet again. The studies dont show a lack of the bias people accuse them of either. That study shows nothing useful at all in relation to the bias people were accusing the ABC of having, yet you decided to share it anyway, presumably so you had a convenient straw man or could obfuscate.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And is cognitive bias your phrase of the week that you dont understand?</p>