there is such an ABUNDANCE of 'information' that is sparse on facts and huge on bias,,,especially in the internet age where ANYONE can start a website and say anything


I found this useful guide of some of the tactics used when an article or story is biased, amongst them are


1.selection and omission: if during a speech a few people boo, the reaction can be described as 'remarks greeted by jeers' or they can be ignored as 'a handful of dissidents'

2.Bias through placement: where a story is placed influences how a reader views it's importance.

3. Bias by headline: The headline is the most viewed part of the story. It can convey excitement where little exists. It can express approval or condemnation.

4. Bias by photos, captions, and photo angles: (self explanatory)

5. Bias through use of names and titles: 'terrorist' vs 'freedomfighter', 'ex con' vs 'served time for a minor offense', 'troubled youth' vs 'thug'

6. Bias through statistics and crowd counts: "a hundred injured in an air crash' vs 'only minor injuries in air crash'

7. word choice and tone : the use of positive and negative words can strongly influence the reader. 'He said', vs 'He complained'



The Bias by Headline is particularly important when news sources are competing against each other, because it is the thing that people see first and that which usually determines if they will read further

We do that on mingle just as everyday people

Anyway, Its an interesting read. And in this age of so much information and MISinformation, looking out for these biases may be a good habit to get into.

I am sorry .. I have a 'Trump Allergy' .. and that is the unbiased TRUTH !!!

Thanks, msharmony.

I'll add a sort of addendum, which is that those of us who study history as a discipline, usually learn that there is ALWAYS a bias, no matter how much and how sincerely reporters try to prevent it.

Therefore it's important not only to recognize that bias is present, but also to work to understand the bias, well enough to determine what in the report to be cautious about.

It is also not a solution to bias, to discard everything reported, because one element of bias is noted. That doesn't protect you from lies, it makes you more vulnerable to the biases that you don't recognize, due to your own existing beliefs and assumptions.

One more thing to add to your list. Maybe it's a little to the side. But it's to watch out for people who include criticisms of other viewpoints, as a part of their report.

Especially if the reporter or their organization makes a big deal about being UNBIASED.

ahhh,


lovely points per usual Igor,,, thank you for adding to the thread,,and Happy Holidays !

only because there is a market for it.


IMO it's not all that useful, unless it's meant to be an instruction manual on how to manipulate a written product, like it's a memo from some ad copy manager or editor to a new employee.

It doesn't really help anyone spot bias, determine its effects, or counter it to maintain some level of information equanimity while reading.

I mean

How exactly do you spot omission if that's the only news article or proclamation on a subject?
If you already have the information, so can spot the omission, then IMO you are most likely there for your own confirmation bias, not really seeking "news," so if you spot the omission you are more likely to rationalize it into something you want it to be.


A story has to be placed somewhere.
#2 seems to be referring more to bias inherent to the reader/consumer, more than creating a bias.

There's a big difference between an attempt to create a bias in the reader, and simply taking advantage of biases that are already there.

Difference between propaganda and marketing.
Otherwise you're equating a website advocating white supremacy action against someone, listing "biased" reasons justifying the action, to cereal companies placing their product on a shelf in line with the eyes of children.

Everyone has inherent biases.
Not all biases are inherently bad.
In order to spot bias you have to compare it to something else, preferably something unbiased.
If everything you are comparing is biased, it's not going to be that effective.
Most of the time you are just going to develop your own bias preference.

Omission is 'easy' to spot for me.

IF a story says,,, " A woman shot her child. They had been known to have a rocky relationship and the child was recently expelled from school. The woman was known to threaten people with her gun and neighbors said she was always yelling at her child'

,,just for instance

to me, lots of information is missing

1. What happened when the 'child' was shot? How old is the 'child'? Was this self defense (or should I only assume because its a 'child' and because of their history that it was murder?)


Its like seeing a puzzle with missing pieces,, even if you didnt see the box cover, you know there's wholes.

Excellent procedure. In other words, I do that too, so it must be brilliant.

We can also use skills learned from TV shows and movies. Mysteries and cop shows, to be specific, where attending to the basics are always the primary goal: Means, Motive, Opportunity.

Many reports are defective because they state accurately what the basic facts are, but then go on to say that what happened was caused by someone who did not have the MEANS to do it.

Or the reporter attributes a MOTIVE to someone involved, without anything but their own prejudices or personal politics to support that.

Liberals complaining about media bias, priceless.

Speaking of signs of bias...

Another lesser element to watch out for. Thanks, alleoops.

* Whenever a reporter insists on using what can best be referred to as "lingo" in their reports, it is unquestionably biased.

* If someone fails to refer to the actual name of a political figure, in favor of a label which shows that they do or don't already like them;

* if a story proclaims that an entire segment of society which does NOT elect representatives to declare their side of things, is inherently defective or to be praised;

* if the reporter uses specific phrases which only one side of an issue have turned into "sound bites";

These are all indications that the report should NOT be taken to be purely factual or reasonable.

the "outfoxed" video really shows a lot. Follow the leader journalism has prevailed. IMO.

Hi