There are at least two different variations of the word "biased" being used out in the field today which sound very similar which seem to be causing a lot of misunderstanding.
Let's start by looking up the word itself.
From WordReference.com:
biased
A adjective
1 one-sided, biased
excessively devoted to one faction
2 biased, colored, coloured, one-sided, slanted
favoring one person or side over another; "a biased account of the trial"; "a decision that was partial to the defendant"
This definition suffices if great accuracy is not the main goal but rather everyday talk.
Like any form of magic, there is bad bias and good bias. There is nothing wrong with being convinced that you are correct on an issue and making a case for it based upon the information available to you. There is nothing wrong being excessively devoted to one side if you are aware of the main arguments each side (and there may be more than two!) is making and have arrived at your own personal conclusion.
We've all heard that every newspaper is biased. That is true, because an editor must, in the end, choose headlines. The mere process of selecting a headline tells your readers "Of the trillions of things I could talk about today, I wish to talk about this issue." Whether you like it or not, you are telling your readers "this issue (and the particulary way I've formulated it) is the most important to me today."
If it is done in good faith there's nothing wrong with it in my book. This site leans towards the Democrats- but it doesn't do so by trying to mislead its readers. That is "good bias" to me.
The difference with bad bias is sometimes subtle:
one-sidedness, "bad bias"
Intentionally leaving out facts which you know contradict your own argument.
You claim that lotion 4UrSkin is good for everyone but know all along that it failed many tests.
You tell your great-grandson smoking can't be that bad because you're 95 and smoke 3 packs a day (unless you are senile, you are intentionally leaving out the fact that there are well-documented statistics showing that many people do die and are hardly as "lucky" as you). You are leaving out information that contradicts your argument- and this is bad bias...
However, we now arrive at the crux of the matter: there are many situations where someone knows of information, but does not mention it because he genuinely feels it has no effect on his or her argument.
For example, if person A wants to say "Hey, you're roof is leaking- you need to have it fixed.", or "Hey, you are about to run into a stop sign, slow down!" he may be totally aware of the fact that there is a reason in each case. In the second case, he may be quite aware that the driver had a bad night's sleep, etc.. He just doesn't see it as relevant at the moment to the argument he is making. He sees no reason to state "Hey slow down, don't you remember how little sleep you got last night and... BOOM!(too late to argue now)
Here's a typical situation. Person A says that Israel is dropping heavy bombs on a civilian population with nowhere to go. Person A stops his argument at that point and says no more. Here is where person B comes in. Instead of addressing anything person A has to say, he claims Person A is biased because he failed to mention one of his (person B's) arguments. Like, say, the fact that Hamas shot off several rockets that day. But person A is trying to make the point that there is never, ever, under no conditions a reason to bomb a civilian population to smithereens and it needs to stop immediately. Person A sees no reason to mention that because it would only serve to detract from his main argument.
On that note, I would like to stop and inject some good bias into something related to the example I used above. There are a lot of arguments about whether Israel is intentionally targeting civilians. It is what led me to write this diary in the first place. Here is my answer and I am INTENTIONALLY NOT MENTIONING what Hamas did today or yesterday because I don't feel it affects my arguments!
The question is not whether or not Israel (9+ / 0-)
is targeting civilians. The question is how many civilians Israel is prepared to kill when targeting their "targets" (whatever they may be). Can you imagine what kind of an uproar it would cause in America if police decided to blow up an entire neighborhood street full of people because they were absolutely sure bank robbers were hiding in one of the houses?
by FudgeFighter on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 06:32:48 AM PST
[ Parent | Reply to This ]
*
* [new] Search MOVE Philadelphia (6+ / 0-)
o see how that works out. The resentment lingers.
by marina on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 06:35:35 AM PST
[ Parent | Reply to This | RecommendHide ]
o
Wow- thanks for the link. (1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
marina
by FudgeFighter on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 06:44:34 AM PST
Lastly, I'm not sure if "bias" is the right word, but using euphemisms pretty much gives away who you are afraid of offending. This comment was on the way headlines are formulated on the BBC news:
I agree that words like "clashes", "strikes" (6+ / 0-)
and "operations", etc. (obviously their attempt not to offend) tend to water the severity of the situation down tremendously. It sounds a bit like there are some protests on the streets which got "a bit out of hand".
What's wrong with just saying what is really happening:
Israel Drops (heavy) Bombs on Gaza, (one of the most heavily populated places on earth)