JD on EP

This touches on an information philosophy I've had for a while.

I've always wondered why "mainstream" media, much less anyone else, seems to think that they are in any way an unbiased source of information. Just by covering a story (with *both* sides of the story represented no less, as if there are always two side, much less *only* two side) they are implictly applying thier bias, or collective bias in the case of corporate/group news providers. I feel that the maintaining the appearance of no bias is more damaging to people than sharing information with your bias out there on your sleeves.

I agree with you JD, by allowing, in fact encouraging, feedback, you are bringing a variety of views to the table that fosters better, more robust information. Of course, this also increases the chance of introducing noise into the equation, but that's a price that I feel I'm willing to pay, espceically considering the false idea of bias free information.

I've always wondered why "mainstream" media, much less anyone else, seems to think that they are in any way an unbiased source of information.

i'm going to assume that this is not a rhetorical comment (although it may well be) and suggest two reasons why mainstream media feels that it has the high ground when it comes to objectivity (and all this comes with the disclaimer that IANAJ):

1. Journalism is, at its best and at its core, a collection of ethics, as much as anything else. There is a deliberate effort on the part of any journalist with integrity to get as many sides of the story as possible, to gather facts and present them, to confirm sources.

Journalists may in fact bring bias to a story, but they are honorbound to make attempts to remove bias wherever it is recognized.

While the set of bloggers and the set of journalists may overlap, bloggers are not journalists--not unless they subscribe to some code that includes an attempt to be fair to all sides and that includes some modicum of transparency with regard to bias.

2. Journalism assumes the presence of editors, which means objective eyes holding the writing journalist(s) accountable to the standards of the vehicle of both the publisher and the profession. More than one person is reviewing the piece before it is published.

With regard to the latter point, bloggers have it all over reporters in terms of being held accountable since there are more voices holding the writer accountable. Editors are valuable, perhaps, but i'm undecided about whether they are as valuable as "many eyes." i would give it to the bloggers hands down if there didn't seem to be an element of mob rule in some of the "corrections" that result from "many eyes."

In general, Danilo, i agree with your comments, but i think i have to disagree what seems to be the suggestion that journalists should quit making an effort to remove bias from their reports. i value those efforts, and i don't believe they are wasted.

On the other hand, i also value the notion that more points of view get us closer to the truth. In that respect, i think that blogging should not be ignored as a medium of journalism. Although there is still room, it seems, for a gate-keeping mechanism that we have not yet discovered--some of the struggle i have in this area comes down to simply not having the mental bandwidth to deal with all of the information available.

I.e, the price you are willing to pay--the additional noise--i find myself unable to grapple with.

Just getting old, i guess.